Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
12-11-2000 Attachment Staff Report 330 Exhibit A
n 1 1 J �i 1 Staff Report 330 Exhibit A ADEQUACY DETERMINATION AND RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE BEST BUY CAMPUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADOPTED BY THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 11, 2000 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Best Buy Co., Inca (Best Buy) intends to build a new corporate headquarters in the City of Richfield in Hennepin County. The proposed site is located in the northeast quadrant of Interstate Highway 494 (I -494) and Penn Avenue Interchange and is bounded by I -494 on the south, Penn Avenue on the west, 76th Street on the north and Knox Avenue on the east (Project Site or Site). The Project Site contains 42.85 acres and is currently fully developed with a mixture of business and residential uses. Best Buy proposes to redevelop the Site in a campus setting (Best Buy Campus or Project) by constructing four office buildings with a minimum of 1.5 million square feet (sq. ft.) and parking facilities for 7,500 cars. Best Buy expects that initial employment at the Best Buy Campus will be 5,500 to 6,500 persons, rising to 7,500 persons in subsequent years. Access to the Project Site will be from Penn Avenue, 76h Street at Newton Avenue and Knox Avenue. The redevelopment plan assumes significant street improvements including a new Penn Avenue Bridge over I -494, the rebuilding of Penn Avenue both south and north of the new bridge, the rebuilding of 76`h Street from west of Penn Avenue to Interstate Highway 35W (I -35W) and the rebuilding of the Penn Avenue / 76`h Street intersection. Adequacy Determination and 1 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus r Demolition and construction of the Best Buy Campus would begin in April of 2001 with the initial move in expected in November of 2002. 2. APPLICANT, RGU, AND CONSULTANTS Best Buy is the proposer of the Best Buy Campus and has made application for various permits and approvals related to the Project. The Best Buy Campus is proposed for construction in the City of Richfield (City), and the City, as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), has prepared the Scoping Environmental Worksheet And Draft Scoping Decision Document For The Best Buy Campus (Scoping EAW), the Scoping Decision Document For The Best Buy Campus (Scoping Decision), the Draft Environmental Impact Statement For The Best Buy Campus (DEIS), and the Final Environmental Impact Statement For The Best Buy Campus (FEIS) for this Project in accordance with the Environmental Review Rules promulgated by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB). See Minn. Rules Chapter 4410 (MEQB Rules). ' Best Buy, assisted by the following firms, provided the completed data portions of the Scoping EAW, DEIS, and FEIS to the City: Barr Engineering; Faegre & Benson, LLP; Opus Northwest, , L.L.C.; and URS/BRW, Inc. The following firms assisted the City in preparing the Scoping EAW, Scoping Decision, DEIS and FEIS: SEH Inc. and WSB Engineering. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The various environmental review documents have been prepared pursuant to the MEQB Rules, which require environmental review of commercial and residential development projects of a size that exceeds certain thresholds. Under the MEQB Rules, the Project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The process completed to date for this EIS preparation is described below. The public notices described below are included in Appendix D. 3.1 SCOPING EAW AND DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT The MEQB Rules require the preparation of a Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet to identify the alternatives and issues to be addressed in the EIS. The Scoping EAW for the Project was prepared by the City, circulated for review to all parties on the MEQB mailing list and made available through the City offices and the local library. The Notice of Availability of the ' Scoping EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on May 14, 2000, and in the May 17 and May 24 issues of the Richfield Sun Current newspaper. The 30 -day comment period for the Scoping EAW commenced on May 15, 2000. The public notice for the scoping meeting was published in the Richfield Sun Current newspaper on May 17 and May 24, 2000. A scoping meeting was held on June 7, 2000, to receive public input on the scope of the EIS to be prepared for the Project. The comment period closed on June 14, 2000. Adequacy Determination and 2 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus I In response to the Scoping EAW, there were 12 written comments and 10 comments from individuals who attended the June 7, 2000, public meeting. 3.2 SCOPING DECISION Based on the review of the Scoping EAW and comments received during the public comment period, the City adopted the Scoping Decision on July 10, 2000. Notice of availability of the Scoping Decision was published in the EQB Monitor on July 24, 2000. An article was published in the Richfield Sun Current on July 19, 2000, on the adoption of the Scoping Decision. The Scoping Decision describes three Project alternatives which will be analyzed: the No -Build Alternative; Alternative 1 with five buildings; and Alternative 2 with four buildings. Alternatives 1 and 2 each have two density options: Option A with 1.5 million sq. ft., 7,500 parking spaces and 7,500 employees; and Option B with 1.9 million sq. ft., 9,500 parking spaces and 9,500 employees. For more detail, see Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Scoping Decision. The Scoping Decision also describes three 76h Street reconstruction alternatives which will be considered: widening the roadway to north; widening it to the south; or widening it both to the north and south. For more detail, see Section 3.3 of the Scoping Decision. The Scoping Decision identified 22 issues to be studied in the EIS: potential for environmental e hazard; connection to public water supply, erosion and sedimentation; surface water runoff; wastewater treatment methods; potential for groundwater contamination; solid wastes, hazardous wastes and storage tanks; traffic; vehicle - related air emissions; traffic related noise; cultural ' resources; visual impacts; compatibility with the City's comprehensive plan and land use regulations; impact on road infrastructure; impact on other public infrastructure including water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, police, fire and other utilities; cumulative impacts; social and economic impacts; fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources; dewatering; stationary source air emissions; pedestrian safety; and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) freeway ramp metering practices. For more detail, see Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Scoping Decision. The Scoping Decision identified 10 issues to be excluded from analysis in the EIS: cover types; rare, threatened and endangered species; wetlands; abandoned wells; water - related land use management districts; surface use of waters; animal manure; construction odors, noise and dust; and nearby resources. For more detail, see Section 4.1 of the Scoping Decision. The primary areas of the Draft Scoping Decision Document that were modified as a result of comments received on the Scoping EAW included: • Addition of eight intersections to the proposed traffic analysis; • Addition of a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey on the Wally McCarthy parcel within the Site; and Adequacy Determination and 3 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus • Addition of five issues to be discussed in less, but appropriate, detail, i.e., the landscape benefits of each alternative to wildlife, the determination of need for dewatering during construction, the permitting requirements for proposed emergency diesel generators, the impacts of traffic on pedestrians and bicyclists, and the discussion of MnDOT ramp metering practices. For eater detail, lease see Section 4.3 of the Scoping Decision. �' P No comments were received requesting the consideration of alternative site locations. The City of Bloomington requested that a less intensive alternative be added and reviewed. The City determined that the minimum development necessary to meet Best Buy's office space requirements was 1.5 million sq. ft. and declined to add a less intense alternative citing Minn. Rules 4410.2300, subp. G which provides in part, "An alternative may be excluded from analysis in the EIS if it would not meet the underlying need for or purpose of the project ..." 3.3 DEIS , After completion of the scoping phase of the EIS process, an EIS Preparation Notice was published in the EQB Monitor on July 24, 2000. The notice outlined the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS as defined by the Scoping Decision. Preparation of the DEIS commenced in May 2000 as the issues to be analyzed were being , identified in the scoping process. Notice of Availability of the DEIS was published on August 21, 2000, in the EQB Monitor and in an advertisement taken by the City in the September 6, 2000, issue of the Richfield Sun Current newspaper. An article in the same newspaper on August 30, 2000, noted the availability of the DEIS and the public hearing date. The DEIS was circulated for review to the public, governmental jurisdictions, and regulatory agencies in accordance with MEQB Rules. The DEIS was also made available through the. City I offices and the local library. The public comment period for the DEIS commenced on August 22, 2000. The comment process included a public hearing. The notice for the public hearing was included in the notice in the Richfield Sun Current on September 6, 2000. The meeting was held at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at Richfield City Hall on Wednesday, September 13, 2000. Oral comments were recorded and documented in a transcript for the September 13 Public Meeting. The public comment period for the DEIS ended on Thursday, September 28, 2000. During (or shortly after) the DEIS comment period, 20 written comments and 35 verbal comments were received. In addition, the City of Richfield hosted four open houses: two for the Best Buy Campus on September 19 and 21, 2000, and two for the Penn Avenue Interchange Reconstruction Project on August 2 and October 10, 2000. Notice for the September 19 meeting was published in the September 13, 2000, edition of the Richfield Sun Current newspaper. Notice for September 21 meeting was published in the September 13 and the September 20, 2000, issues of the Richfield Sun Current newspaper. I Adequacy Determination and 4 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus I 1 A 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.4 FEIS After reviewing the comments on the DEIS, the City determined that additional analyses were necessary and additional information was needed to answer the questions and concerns presented. This additional work performed included: • For the traffic study, an intersection was added to the traffic analysis, an analysis of Project impacts on the regional roadway system (I -35W and I -494) was done, a review of weaving conditions on I-494 was undertaken, and additional review of MnDOT ramp metering practices was made; • For the Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan (TDM Plan), the Plan was revised to redefine the goal as a decrease in peak hour trips, to add trip reduction strategies, and to increase the Campus Transportation coordinator position to full -time; • For the 70h Street reconstruction alternatives, additional information on the scope of proposed property condemnation and additional alignments for the Knox Avenue / 76th Street intersection were developed; • For pedestrian safety, additional review was conducted of the pedestrian safety in the Project area and the City selected a preferred mitigation measure for the southbound I -35W ramp intersection with 70h Street which retains the "No Right Turn On Red" condition; • For the parking ramp, additional analysis was completed for the potential parking space replacement due to I494 expansion via a partial added level to the southwest corner of the ramp. • For construction impacts, additional information was provided on the potential detours and construction timing of the different road improvements in relation to the Project. All this additional work was incorporated in the FEIS in the substantive sections, the responses to comments or both. The FEIS Notice of Availability was published in the EQB Monitor on October 30, 2000. A press release was issued on October 26, 2000. The FEIS was circulated for review to the public, governmental jurisdictions, and regulatory agencies in accordance with the MEQB Rules. The FEIS was made available through the City offices and the local library. The 10 -day public comment period on the FEIS commenced on November 1, 2000, and closed on November 13, 2000. During (or shortly after) the FEIS comment period, 11 comment letters were received. See Appendix B for copies of these letters. In addition 203 postcards were received expressing opposition to the Project. See Appendix C for copies of these postcards. Adequacy Determination and 5 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 3.5 DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY After reviewing the comments on the FEIS, the City determined that certain questions and concerns merited additional analyses. This additional work performed included: • For traffic, additional description and analysis of ramp metering was prepared, further description and analysis regarding weaving distance and traffic safety on I-494 was done, the two traffic software models used to predict intersection and intersection movement levels of service were compared in detail; a mistake in the mainline analysis was corrected and mitigation analyzed, and arterial street capacity was completed; • For the Proposed TDM Plan, the Plan was refined by adding car and van pool preferential spaces and certain financial incentives; • For the 76b Street reconstruction alternatives, further analysis was performed and discussions held regarding impacts on, and mitigation for, the Fountainhead and Colony apartment complexes; and • For noise, additional analysis was performed for the AM Peak Hour, impacts in 2022 and impacts on a school at the Penn Avenue / 76h Street intersection; additional study was done of potential temporary noise impacts during construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge on the 82nd Street detour route. This additional work was incorporated in this Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision For The Best Buy Campus Environmental Impact Statement (Record Of Decision). This Record Of Decision contains responses to the FEIS comments in Appendix A. Copies of this Record Of Decision were distributed to the City Council on December 7, 2000. Commentors requesting the Record Of Decision were also provided copies on December 8, 2000, even though the City is not required by the MEQB Rules to distribute the document until after the City Council makes its adequacy decision. 4. FINDINGS I After considering the Scoping EAW, the Scoping Decision, the DEIS, the FEIS, the responses to comments on these documents, other documents referenced in these documents, the report of its staff, and public testimony, the Richfield City Council makes the following Findings with regard to the alternatives studied, the significant environmental, social and economic effects expected to result from the proposed Best Buy Campus, and potential mitigation measures identified to reduce or eliminate those effects. Il �J 1 1 Adequacy Determination and 6 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision - Best Buy Campus f 1 1 1 1 1 r A 1 4.1 ALTERNATIVE STUDIED 4.1.1 Project Alternatives As provided in the Scoping Decision, three Project Alternatives were studied — the No- Build, Alternative 1 with five buildings and Alternative 2 with four buildings. The No -Build Alternative was studied with respect to all expected significant impacts. Two Site design concepts, Alternative 1 and 2, were also studied. The Alternatives differed as to number of buildings and building locations, sizes and heights. Both layouts could accommodate the minimum and maximum options for square footage and parking spaces by adding floors to one or more buildings and levels to the parking ramps. Each design plan provided a commons area and storm water ponds. Alternative 1 would contain five buildings clustered around a central pond that would extend out among the buildings. A commons area would be constructed between two of the buildings. Parking would be provided in three structured ramps and one surface lot along the southerly side of the property. This lot would eventually be taken for the expected expansion of I -494. Alternative 2 would contain four buildings in the southwest half of the Site with ponds located along the southerly and southwesterly sides of the Site. A commons area would be constructed between the four buildings and the parking ramp. Parking would be provided in one structured ramp in the northeast portion of the Site and in three surface lots. The surface lots would be off Newton next to the daycare center; off Penn Avenue between two buildings for visitors, and along the southerly side of the property. The latter would eventually be taken for I-494 expansion. 4.1.2 76`h Street Reconstruction Alternatives As provided in the Scoping Decision, three alternative alignments for reconstructing 76`h Street were studied — widening the roadway to the north, widening it to the south or widening it both to the north and south. The property impacts were identified for all three alternatives, with the south alternative affecting the least number of properties. 4.2 EROSION CONTROL 4.2.1 Impacts The Project Site does not contain any excessively steep slopes nor does it lie within any shoreland or wetland zones within the approximate 42 acre drainage area. All of the Site would be graded with approximately 300,000 cubic yards of material moved on -Site and 15,000 cubic yards removed from the Site. Adequacy Determination and 7 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.2.2 Mitigation I A sediment and erosion control plan has been prepared and will be submitted to the City for final approval as required by the City's Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Best management practices described in the DEIS will be incorporated into the control plan to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction. 4.3 SURFACE WATER RUNOFF I 4.3.1 Impacts Under Alternative 1, a single on -Site storm water treatment and storage pond would be constructed to accommodate runoff from the Site. Under Alternative 2, two treatment and storage ponds would serve the same function. Both alternatives would result in substantial reductions in the peak discharge rate of the Site. Flooding of areas in the vicinity of the Project, that has historically been a problem for the City due to lack of adequate detention and piping facilities, would be significantly reduced. Both alternatives greatly improve the quality of the storm water runoff from the Site through construction of storm water ponds and additional piping. Total phosphorus in Site runoff would drop by 58 %; total suspended solids by 82 %; biochemical and chemical oxygen demand by 40 %; and metals by 40% to 85 %. 4.3.2 Mitigation Neither alternative addresses storm water runoff from property and streets to the north of the Site which now flows through the Site on City streets. However, two mitigation options were described in the DEIS to handle storm water drainage from areas north of the Site. Option 1 would reroute the off -Site drainage to flow around the Site. Option 2 would reroute off -site drainage into the Site ponds which would be designed to treat and contain the additional volume. The City and Best Buy have identified Option 2 as the preferred mitigation measure. This would provide additional flood mitigation and water quality improvement in the Project area. A storm water management plan has been prepared and will be submitted to the City for final " approval as required for the City's Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. 4.4 TRAFFIC I The traffic analysis completed for the Project included the evaluation of potential impacts on 19 intersections, on the regional transportation system (specifically I -35W and I -494), on traffic weaving at Penn Avenue and I-494, and on residential streets. A Proposed TDM Plan has also been prepared. Adequacy Determination and S December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.4.1 Intersection Impacts ' The intersection analysis was conducted for the Years 2003 and 2022 in both the AM and PM peak hours, with and without the Project. The analysis assumed the following improvements (collectively the Project Roadway Improvements): • Reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge over I494 to a single -point diamond interchange and the widening of Penn Avenue between the Southtown Access and the Project Site West Access in the City; • Reconstruction of the Penn Avenue / 76`h Street intersection to include two through lanes, dual left turn lanes, and a dedicated right turn lane in each direction; • Reconstruction of 76`h Street between Penn Avenue and I -35W to include two through lanes in each direction, protected left turn lanes and dedicated right turn lanes at Knox and Newton Avenues; and • Installation of traffic signals at the Penn Avenue / Project Site West Access intersection, the 76th Street / Newton Avenue intersection and the 76`h Street / Knox Avenue intersection. In the Year 2003 without the Project, a number of intersections and movements at intersections in the vicinity of the Project Site would operate at level of service (LOS) E, poor conditions, or LOS F, failing conditions, due to background traffic. a. Option A For the Year 2003, assuming construction of Project Option A (7,500 employees), all intersections impacted by Site - generated traffic are expected to operate at a LOS D, acceptable conditions, or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. The Project Roadway Improvements are expected to improve significantly the operation of the Penn Avenue / 76'h Street intersection (from LOS F to LOS C) and to eliminate queue lengths exceeding storage lengths at the Penn Avenue / I494 intersection ramps. At the 76`h Street / I -35W intersection, the north approach ' right turn movement queue in the AM peak hour is expected to exceed storage length and impact the I -35W mainline. A number of mitigation options for this intersection were identified. The preferred mitigation is described in the mitigation section below. e For the Year 2022, assuming construction of Project Option A (7,500 employees), all intersections impacted by Site - generated traffic are expected to operate at a LOS D (acceptable conditions) or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. The Programmed Roadway Improvements are expected to improve significantly the operation of the Penn Avenue / 76`h Street intersection (from LOS F to LOS C) and to eliminate queue lengths exceeding storage lengths at the Penn Avenue / I -494 intersection ramps. At the 76`h Street / I -35W intersection, the north approach right turn movement queue in the AM peak hour is no longer expected to ' exceed the storage length because the I -35W / I -494 Interchange would have been rebuilt. Nevertheless, the queue is long enough that Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) may require mitigation. I _ Adequacy Determination and 9 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.4.2 Intersection Mitigation I A range of mitigation options is provided for each substantial intersection impact including, design improvements for specific intersection movements, a reduction in Site - generated trips through use of a TDM Plan and a reduction in the size of Option B to less than 9,500 employees. The City has identified a preferred mitigation for AM queue length impact at the northbound I- 35W ramp at 76th Street. The City would retain the "No Right Turn On Red" sign and add a second lane to the ramp to increase queuing capacity. 4.4.3 Mainline Impacts In the Year 2003, the traffic generated by either Project Option A or Option B would not affect b. Option B For the Year 2003, assuming construction of Project Option B (9,500 employees), all intersections impacted by Site - generated traffic are expected to operate at a LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours, except the 76th Street / I -35W intersection which is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. Site - generated traffic in the AM peals hour is expected to , cause the queue length at the Penn Avenue / I-494 West Ramp intersection to exceed storage length and impact the I-494 mainline. Option B would require mitigation measures for the 76th Street / I -35W intersection and the Penn Avenue / I-494 West Ramp intersections. For the Year 2022, assuming construction of Project Option B (9,500 employees), all intersections impacted by Site - generated traffic would operate at a LOS D or better, except the Penn Avenue / Project Site West Access intersection, which would operate at a LOS F in the PM peak hour. At the 76th Street / I -35W intersection, the north approach right turn movement queue in the AM peak hour is no longer expected to exceed the storage length because the I -35W / I- 494 Interchange would have been rebuilt. Nevertheless, the queue is long enough that MnDOT may require mitigation. However, Site - generated traffic in the AM peak hour is expected again to cause the queue length at the Penn Avenue / I -494 West Ramp intersection to exceed storage length and impact the I-494 mainline. Site generated traffic also causes deficiencies in the PM peak hour at the 76th Street / Knox intersection and the Penn Avenue / 80th Street intersection. Mitigation would be required at these last three intersections. Based on the impacts identified in the intersection analysis, Option A is the preferred density option for the Project since it has less impact on traffic and requires the least amount of mitigation to minimize traffic impacts. 4.4.2 Intersection Mitigation I A range of mitigation options is provided for each substantial intersection impact including, design improvements for specific intersection movements, a reduction in Site - generated trips through use of a TDM Plan and a reduction in the size of Option B to less than 9,500 employees. The City has identified a preferred mitigation for AM queue length impact at the northbound I- 35W ramp at 76th Street. The City would retain the "No Right Turn On Red" sign and add a second lane to the ramp to increase queuing capacity. 4.4.3 Mainline Impacts In the Year 2003, the traffic generated by either Project Option A or Option B would not affect the level of service on I -35W, however both Options would have an impact in 2003 in the AM peak on the mainline of I -494 between Penn and Xerxes, changing the level of service from E to F. In the Year 2022, the traffic generated by Project Option A would not affect the level of service on either I-494 or I -35W. Option B would cause the level of service on the segment of I -494 , between Xerxes Avenue and Penn Avenue to drop below an acceptable level of service in the AM and PM peak hour. Adequacy Determination and 10 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 1 k r t e 4.4.4 Mainline Mitigation Option A is the Selected Alternative. Mitigation for the mainline traffic impacts in 2003 resulting from the Project will be completed by MnDOT with their proposed I-494 reconstruction project. 4.4.5 Weaving Impacts A study prepared by MnDOT on weaving issues, which can be compared to construction of the Penn Avenue single -point diamond bridge, concluded that the reconstructed bridge will provide longer ramps and higher ramp speeds which would lessen weaving conflicts and improve performance on eastbound I-494 west of the bridge. Benshoof and Associates, Inc. representing Walser Automotive Group, disagrees with this conclusion and presented information in support of its position. 4.4.6 Weaving Mitigation Based on the MnDOT study findings, no mitigation is required. 4.4.7 Residential Streets The best way to prevent traffic from cutting through residential neighborhoods is to maintain an arterial street system with an adequate level of service. The traffic analysis indicates that the Project Roadway Improvements would increase the level of service on Penn Avenue and 76th Street significantly. Improved travel times on these streets would give drivers less reason to use nearby residential streets. Additionally, data provided shows that the arterial streets that are near the Project area have adequate capacity to accommodate additional traffic from the Project. It was also found that ramp meters have sufficient capacity, with adjusted timing to minimize traffic on residential streets. Benshoof and Associates, Inc. representing Walser Automotive Group, disagrees with these conclusions and presented information in support of its position. 4.4.8 Residential Street Mitigation Based on the expected level of development, worst -case trip distribution and the capacity and present volumes of the arterial streets, the Project Road Improvements provide the capacity necessary to minimize impacts to residential streets. 4.4.9 Proposed TDM Plan The Proposed TDM Plan goal has been revised to reduce trips to the Best Buy Campus in each peak hour by 450 to 750 trips. The Plan outlines a combination of strategies including transit, carpooling, vanpooling, staggered hours, flex -time and telecommuting to reach this goal. A full time Campus Transportation Coordinator will oversee these efforts. The Proposed TDM plan will be submitted to the City for final approval as required by the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Adequacy Determination and 1 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus n� 4.5 76" STREET RECONSTRUCTION I 4.5.1 Impacts I Three alternatives for the reconstruction of 76th Street were analyzed - north, central, and south alignments. This road reconstruction would impact a number of adjacent properties. All j alignments impact eight properties at the Penn Avenue intersection. The North alignment impacts eight additional properties for a total of 16. The Central alignment also impacts eight additional properties, for a total of 16. The South alignment would have the fewest property , impacts with only two additional properties affected for a total of 10. 4.5.2 Mitigation First, the South alignment has been selected by the City as the preferred alignment since it has the least impact to adjacent property owners. The City will coordinate with each affected property owner to determine specific location and size impacts and identify mitigation options specific to those properties. Second, the City has reconfigured the 76th Street / Penn Avenue intersection to avoid the taking of any buildings or full parcels. Third, the loss of twenty parking garage stalls at Fountainhead Apartments could be mitigated through payment of a damage award by the City for right -of -way that can be used to construct new garage stalls at a different location on the property. The City is proposing no net loss in on- I site parking. Fourth, a mitigation measure has been identified which has Knox Avenue as a four - legged intersection that is shifted slightly to the west. The details of the intersection layout are being designed as part of the 76`" Street Reconstruction project. This alternative allows Fountainhead to retain their northerly access, and also provides the opportunity to allow the Colony Apartment , Complex access to be connected at the intersection. 4.6 AIR QUALITY 4.6.1 Impacts I The air quality analysis completed for the Project concluded that all applicable Federal and State ' regulations are satisfied and that the Project alternatives and options will not cause exceedances of carbon monoxide (CO) standards based on representative analysis at worst -case locations, under worst -case conditions. For all conditions modeled, the highest one -hour and eight -hour predicted concentrations will be 6.9 and 6.6 parts per million (ppm) respectively. These values are below the State standards of 30 ppm for one -hour and 9 ppm for eight - hours. 4.6.2 Mitigation No mitigation is required since the increase in air pollutants is inconsequential. Adequacy Determination and 12 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus , ' 4.7 TRAFFIC - RELATED NOISE 4.7.1 Impacts Traffic noise analyses were completed for Options A and B for both the AM and PM Peak Hours in both 2003 and 2022. In addition, a noise analysis for the temporary construction detour for the Penn Avenue Bridge was performed. In 2003 during the AM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just perceptible at Receptors N -1 (77h Street and Penn Avenue) and N -2 (Newton Avenue at 761' Street). The additional noise from Option B traffic would be clearly perceptible at Receptor N -1. In 2003 during the PM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just ' perceptible at Receptor N -2. The additional noise from Option B traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2. ' In 2022 during the AM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic (compared to 2003 No- Build) would be clearly perceptible at Receptors N -1 and N-4 (Penn Avenue at 76th Street). The additional noise from Option B traffic would be clearly perceptible at Receptor N -1. In 2022 during the PM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2 and clearly perceptible -at- Receptor N=4. The additional noise from Option B traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2. The additional noise from temporary detour traffic at Receptor N -5 (Logan Avenue and 82 °a Street) would not be perceptible. 4.7.2 Mitigation No mitigation is required. A screen wall could be constructed for a two block -long segment north of 76`" Street from Logan Avenue to Newton Avenue. However, residents in the neighborhood will need to support the wall and the changes in access that would be needed to build a wall. Several homes that have direct access to 76h Street would need to relocate their driveways to the north -south avenues. ' 4.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, STORAGE TANKS, AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 4.8.1 Impacts The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) identified a number of potential environmental hazards on the property including petroleum leaks, underground storage tanks, and water wells — both abandoned and in use. Adequacy Determination and 13 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.8.2 Mitigation I A Phase II Investigation Report and Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Plan (VIC) has been ' prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the ESA and State regulations. Prior to and during redevelopment of the Project Site, all contaminants will be removed and properly disposed, and wells will be sealed by a licensed contractor. 4.9 SOLID WASTES I 4.9.1 Impacts Waste generated from the demolition of the existing structures will be removed from the Site. Solid waste and recyclable materials generated from the activities in the office buildings will be removed from the Site and disposed of according to local and State regulations. ' 4.9.2 Mitigation No mitigation is required. , 4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES I 4.10.1 Impacts I The State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) conducted a site files search, and an on -site reconnaissance was conducted by BRW cultural resources staff. Neither search produced sites or potential for intact archaeological materials. A Phase I Historic Architecture Survey was completed on the Wally McCarthy Oldsmobile property because of the year built (1947) and distinctive building characteristics. It was determined by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that the property did not meet the minimum requirements for further investigation. 4.10.2 Mitigation I No mitigation is required. 4.11 WATER SUPPLY 4.11.1 Impacts Current water demand for the residences and commercial businesses within the Project Site is approximately 35,000 gallons per day (gpd). Anticipated demand for domestic water for the Project will be 187,500 gpd for 7,500 employees (Option A) and 237,500 gpd for 9,500 employees (Option B). There will also be water needed for maintenance of the pond and lawns. A 12 -inch water main will be installed along 76th Street to connect existing water mains, and additional water supply piping improvements will be constructed. Two wells may be installed Adequacy Determination and 14 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus t FJ on -Site to supplement water supply for pond and landscape maintenance. Estimated demand would be 75,000 gpd. A Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) permit would regulate this use. If wells were not installed, this demand could also be met by the City water system. The water well capacity for the City is 19 million gallons per day. The current average daily demand in the City is 4 million gallons per day. Therefore, there is adequate capacity for the increased water demands by this Project. The Project will require the relocation of two water mains that supply water to the City of Bloomington. The timing of this reconstruction will impact that City's water supply. 4.11.2 Mitigation No mitigation is required as there is adequate water capacity within the current City system. A utility plan will be submitted to the City for final approval. Best Buy will continue to coordinate with the City of Bloomington and Richfield on the timing of the water main relocation. 4.12 WASTE WATER 4.12.1 Impacts Current flow into the nearest lift station is approximately 203,000 gpd. The proposed sanitary discharge from the Project is estimated to be 187,500 gpd for Option A, and 237,500 gpd for Option B. Based on the estimated waste water demands of the Best Buy Campus, the existing lift station and its wet well storage will be modified as part of the Project to accommodate additional flows. Collection system pipes will be relocated and improved to maintain the current pumping rates in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) wastewater collection system. The lift station improvements will be completed prior to occupancy of the Project Site. a. Mitigation No mitigation is required. 4.13 VISUAL IMPACTS 4.13.1 Lighting Impacts ' The proposed lighting plan is in conformance with the City lighting code and the lighting guidelines set forth by the Illuminating Engineering Society. Landscaping will be designed to minimize lighting impacts on the surrounding property. A final Lighting Plan and a Final ' Landscape Plan will be submitted to the City for approval as required be a condition in the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Adequacy Determination and 15 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.13.2 Shadow Impacts A shadow analysis was completed for all four seasons for both alternatives. The study indicated that for Alternative 1 the shadows from the five buildings and parking facilities would be contained on the Project Site for much of the year, with Option B shadows extending slightly further. In spring and fall the properties to the east and west of the Site would be affected by shadows in the early morning and late afternoon. In the winter months, properties to the north would be in shadow for portions of the day. In Alternative 2, the shadows from the four buildings and parking facility would extend further ' out into the road right of way during the winter and affect additional properties than Alternative 1. The affected areas for both Alternatives will primarily be streets and sidewalks where the potential for slow ice and snow melt and refreezing situations could pose a problem if the areas are not regularly sanded and salted. Under current city maintenance programs, 76th Street, Penn Avenue and Knox Avenue are regularly salted and sanded therefore no mitigation is recommended. An additional analysis was completed for the partial parking deck which could be built to replace surface stalls lost to future I -494 expansion and found no additional impact. 4.13.3 Mitigation No mitigation is required. 4.14 COMPATIBILITY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ADJACENT LAND USES 4.14.1 Impacts The type of redevelopment proposed by Best Buy for this area of Richfield is consistent with the type of land use designated in the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Project Site. The Metropolitan Council has approved the plan amendment. Commercial development is already a large component of the Site and is also a major component of the property adjacent to both sides of I-494 east and west of the Site. 4.14.2 Mitigation No mitigation is required. 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.15.1 Impact The effect of the Project on roadways is discussed in the Traffic Section (Section 4.4 of this , Record Of Decision) and includes information on the planned road improvements in relation to the increased volume of traffic. The effect of the Project on services such as sewer and water is discussed in Section 4.11, Water Supply Changes and Section 4.12, Waste Water. The effect on Adequacy Determination and 16 December II, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus emergency services such as police, fire, and ambulance is discussed in Section 11.5 of the DEIS. The FEIS added supporting data on police calls expected. The data demonstrated no increase in ' police services. 4.15.2 Mitigation Any required mitigation is specifically described in the sections mentioned above. ' 4.16 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 4.16.1 Impacts The impact of the proposed development on various social and economic factors is described in ' Section 11.6 in both the DEIS and the FEIS. Quantifiable costs and benefits to the City are measured and indicate that the development creates the following impacts: • Residents and businesses will be displaced by the Project; however, they will be financially compensated for their property and businesses. The loss of residents to the City and school will be replaced through the use of a Housing Fund, to which a portion of the Project tax increment will be directed. • There will be a net benefit from the Project in direct and indirect employment and in consumer spending. • Increased City administrative costs in some areas will be offset by decreased costs in ' other areas. The highest administrative cost to the City will occur during the development and construction phases; however, fees and administrative tax increment will be collected to cover these costs. ' • The City has an existing utilities infrastructure in place to serve the Project. The Project will use and pay for more of this infrastructure than the current uses do, which will allow for greater utilization of the City's existing resources. • The road network in the area currently operates below acceptable levels of service at several intersections. The Project Roadway Improvements will be made to accommodate Project traffic. The City will benefit from these roadway improvements, which, without the Best Buy Campus, are not expected to occur for approximately 10 years. 4.16.2 Mitigation INo mitigation would be required. 1 Adequacy Determination and 17 December 11, 2000 ' Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.17 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 4.17.1 Impacts Hennepin County crash data indicates that the pedestrian crash rate for 76a' Street was 7.5 times lower than the Hennepin County average for similar roadways. In addition, based on Minnesota Department of Safety data, intersections with signals and/or crosswalks are safer for pedestrians. The Project will add signalized intersections with crosswalks at the 76a' Street / Newton Avenue intersection, the 76th Street / Knox Avenue intersection and the Penn Avenue/ Best Buy entrance intersection. All three should enhance pedestrian safety in the area. The City also looked more closely at the mitigation options for the AM queue length impact at the northbound I -35W ramp / 76a' Street intersection. 4.17.2 Mitigation As noted above, the City has identified a preferred mitigation for the northbound I -35W ramp at 76th Street. The City would retain the "No Right Turn On Red" sign and add a second lane to the ramp to increase queuing capacity. 4.18 RAMP METERING 4.18.1 Impacts Examination of ramp metering in relation to Project - generated traffic indicates that ramp meters have sufficient capacity assuming the timing is adjusted. Specifically, MnDOT would reevaluate the metering at Penn Avenue and I -494 after reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge and the opening of the Best Buy Campus. MnDOT also adjusts ramp metering every six months and, in response to complaints, conducts field surveys and adjusts ramp meters. Finally, if significant queuing that impacts local streets is seen on MnDOT's CCTV cameras, MnDOT can manually override any ramp connected to the system. Benshoof and Associates representing Walser Automotive Group, disagrees with this conclusion and presented information in support of its position. 4.18.2 Mitigation Based on MnDOT ramp metering practices, no mitigation is required. 4.19 DEWATERING Based on the estimated water table at the Site, construction dewatering is not expected for building construction. Reconstruction of the wet well at Lift Station #3 would require small amount of dewatering for a period of a week or less. The amount of water that would be pumped under worst -case conditions would not exceed 1 million gallons and therefore would not likely require a permit. Details of the construction would be coordinated with the DNR hydrologist prior to any Adequacy Determination and 18 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus J dewatering to verify permit requirements. BMP's for sedimentation would be implemented with any dewatering that may be necessary. 4.20 WILDLIFE HABITAT The DEIS (Section 12.2) identified the general landscape plans for both development alternatives. Both would provide improved habitat diversity over exiting conditions, however the layout of Alternative 2 provides connectivity with adjacent habitats, maintaining species mobility whereas Alternative 1 creates isolated habitat within parking structures. ' 4.21 STATIONARY EMISSIONS Emergency generators are the only potential source for stationary emissions. However, given the size and hours of operation anticipated for these generators, the emissions are not expected to trigger MPCA Registration Permit requirements. The specific generator types and locations on ' the site will be coordinated with MPCA. J 1 1 4.22 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are addressed in the specific sections of the Draft and Final EIS. 4.23 FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No -Build Alternative, the following impacts would be expected: • The Penn Avenue / I-494 Interchange would continue to operate LOS F in the PM Peak Hour and the Penn Avenue / 76`" Street intersection would continue to experience severe congestion for certain turning movements; • Storm water runoff from the Project Area and the area to the north would continue to flow into storm sewers without containment or treatment and intermittent flooding could be expected in the area; • Existing contaminants and hazardous waste on -site would not be contained or removed; and • Landowners within the Project Site would continue to experience uncertainty regarding future use or redevelopment of their properties. Adequacy Determination and 19 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 4.24 FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 1 Both alternatives have the same locations for access to the facilities and require the same public I roadway improvements. Both alternatives include a surface parking lot on the south side that will be relinquished ' eventually for the expansion of I -494. 4.24.1 Alternative 1 ' The combination of five buildings and multiple parking ramps in Alternative 1 creates a wall effect between the surrounding neighborhoods and the Best Buy Campus. The area devoted to ' parking also maximizes the impervious surface on the Site and reduces the available open space. The green space and any trails in this design are internal to the Best Buy Campus. I The common space connects two of the five buildings. 4.24.2 Alternative 2 The combination of four buildings and a single parking ramp in Alternative 2 frees up more open ' space on the site. The parking ramp wall effect is limited to a portion of 76h Street and Knox Avenue at the northeast corner of the Site. The building layout provides open areas and green space between the buildings and the ' surrounding neighborhoods. The trail and several green spaces are open to the community. The commons area connects all four buildings and the parking ramp and may provide i opportunities for community uses. 4.24.3 Preferred Alternative ' Based on the analysis and information presented, the City Council prefers Alternative 2 to Alternative 1 because: ' • Fewer buildings and a single parking ramp frees up more open space on the Site; • Due to the building layout and site design, more green space and landscaping face the community; • The trail which circumnavigates the property and several green spaces are accessible by the public; ' • Parking structures dominate fewer views of the Best Buy Campus; • The view from the Penn Avenue / I-494 Interchange creates a more favorable gateway to ' the City; Adequacy Determination and 20 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus ' 1 • Access to the buildings is more visible and visitor friendly; • The design has less impervious surface; and • The common space better serves the Best Buy Campus by connecting all buildings and the parking ramp and may provide opportunities for community uses. ' 4.25 FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE DENSITY OPTIONS Option B, with 9,500 employees was specifically targeted by MnDOT, Bloomington, and the I -494 Corridor Commission as having the potential for negative traffic impacts that could not be mitigated. ' Therefore Option A (1.5 million sq. ft. and 7,500 employees) has been selected as the preferred size of development. This option has the least amount of impact on traffic level of service, mainline operations, ramp meters, and traffic on residential streets. This option also generates less traffic- related noise and air emissions, has less shadow cast from the buildings onto adjacent properties, has less water demand, and will produce less sanitary and solid waste. ' 4.26 FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE 76th STREET RECONSTRUCTION ALIGNMENTS Based on comments to the DEIS, the 76`h Street Alignments have been modified in order to reduce further the impacts to properties near the intersection of Penn Avenue and 76`" Street. First, 76th Street has been shifted south which minimizes the partial taking of land on the north side of 76th Street. Second, Penn Avenue has been shifted west which reduces the partial taking of land on the east side of Penn Avenue north of 76th Street. Third, the westbound right turn lane ' on Penn Avenue has been shortened by 150 feet to avoid the taking of a four -unit apartment building. With the reduction of the westbound right turn lane from 300 feet to 150 feet, a further queuing analysis showed that the queue lengths would not be expected to exceed the storage ' lengths for all scenarios. The south alignment of the 76th Street reconstruction was also identified as the alignment most compatible with the existing conditions for that portion of the Project. The following Right of Way would be required for the south alignment: ' • The proposed 76th Street south curb line will be 10 -40 feet south of existing curb line except at the intersection with Penn Avenue; • The proposed north curb line will be the same as the existing curb line except at the intersection with Penn Avenue; • The proposed ROW will be approximately 15 feet further from the curb line for sidewalk, utilities, snow storage, etc; Adequacy Determination and 21 December 11, 2000 ' Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus 1 • This alignment requires relocation of 20 garages at Fountainhead Apartments. These ' garages will be replaced on Site or on adjacent excess MnDOT right of way or will be compensated to the landowner. 1 • The access drive to Fountainhead Apartments, on Knox Avenue just south of 76h Street, must be modified; , • Access to Oliver Avenue and Morgan Avenue will be limited to right -turn only access. 4.27 FINDINGS RELATIVE TO KNOX AVENUE INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVES ' In the FEIS, eight options were described to provide improved access to the frontage road and 76'b Street (see Section 6.4 of the FEIS for additional details). They were: 1) Leave the driveways and accesses as they are; ' 2) Provide east/west access to Logan Avenue; 3) Curve 76`" Street 20 feet further to the south than the proposed 76h Street South , Alignment; 4) Move 76th Street 80 feet further to the south than the proposed 761` Street South Alignment; ' 5) Remove apartment building, north of 76h Street at Knox Avenue; 6) Create skewed intersection by curving Knox Avenue to the west; ' 7) Create offset intersection; and 8) Move intersection west 40 feet. ' There have been numerous meetings held between Colony Apartment and Fountainhead ' Apartment representatives, the City, and the Developer to determine the most satisfactory solution to the issue of ingress and egress for the apartment complexes. Additional and modified intersection options have been discussed and evaluated. A new alternative has been identified which has Knox Avenue as a four - legged intersection that is shifted slightly to the west. The details of the intersection layout are being designed as part of the 76th Street Reconstruction project. This alternative allows Fountainhead to retain their northerly access, and also provides the Colony Apartment Complex with access to be connected at the intersection. This alternative would reduce the setback for the Best Buy parking ramp. , The proposed design for this intersection was found to be favorable by both apartment complexes. 4.28 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Based on the DEIS, the FEIS, agency comments and City requirements, the following permits and approvals will likely be required for Project construction. Adequacy Determination and 22 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus I 1 1 Table 1.1: Permits Required ---I r 1 1 UNIT OF GOVERNMENT TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) To be applied for Indirect Source Permit (ISP) To be applied for Registration Permit for emergency generators To be applied for Sewer Extension Permit To be determined Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Entrance Permit for Penn Avenue access To be applied for Drainage Permit To be applied for Off -site Road Improvements To be determined Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Groundwater Appropriation Permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Health (MnDH) Watermain Extension Permit To be completed Abandonment of Water Wells 1 To be completed Well Permit/Registration To be completed Local City of Richfield Scoping Decision Approved EIS Adequacy Decision Pending Comprehensive Plan Amendment Pending Planned Unit Development Plan and Rezoning In process Final Development Plan In process Conditional Use Permit In process Utility Vacations In process Right of way Vacations In process Preliminary Plat Approval In process Final Plat Approval In process Demolition Permit To be applied for Building Permits To be applied for Utility Permits To be applied for Adoption of Official Map for I-494 Completed 76th Street at Knox Avenue Entrance Permit To be applied for Contract for Private Redevelopment Completed Housing Redevelopment Authority Business Subsidy Agreement In process Tax Increment Financing Plan and Public Financing In process Adequacy Determination and 23 December 11, 2000 ' Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus Table 1.1: Permits Required, cont. UNIT OF GOVERNMENT TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS Regional Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Grading and Drainage Permits To be applied for Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension To be determined Designating I494 for RALF loan funds Approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approved Hennepin County Penn Avenue Entrance Permit To be applied for 5. DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In determining the adequacy of the Best Buy Campus EIS, the City Council must consider the three criteria specified in Minn. Rules 4410.2800, subp. 4, which are discussed below. 5.1 THE EIS MUST ADDRESS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES RAISED IN SCOPING SO THAT ALL SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FOR WHICH INFORMATION CAN REASONABLY BE OBTAINED HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IN CONFORMANCE WITH MINN. RULES 4410.2300, ITEMS G AND H. The DEIS, FEIS, the responses to comments on these documents, and other documents referenced in these documents, address the alternatives and all the potentially significant issues and set out in the Scoping Decision. A thorough discussion of the significant environmental, economic, employment and sociological impacts of each alternative has been provided. Major differences of opinion concerning significant impacts are discussed. This information is summarized in Section 4 Findings and in Appendix A Response to Comments of this Record Of Decision. The DEIS, the FEIS, and the responses to comments identify mitigation measures that could reasonably eliminate or minimize the adverse environmental, economic, employment and sociological impacts of the Project as described in the EIS. The key mitigation measures are set out in Section 4 Findings of this Record Of Decision. The mitigation of environmental impacts would be designed and implemented in coordination with regulatory agencies and would be subject to the plan approval and permitting process. Permits and approvals that will likely be required for the Project are listed in Section 4 Findings of this Record Of Decision. 1 1 1 Adequacy Determination and 24 December 11, 2000 Record Of Decision Best Buy Campus ' 1 1 1 5.2 THE EIS MUST PROVIDE RESPONSES TO SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEIS REVIEW CONCERNING ISSUES RAISED IN SCOPING. All comments, both written and oral, on the DEIS were responded to in Section 17 of the FEIS. In certain cases, the City requested further information from commentors to clarify the comments before responding. Copies of the comment letters, the City's inquiry letters and commentor responses were attached to the DEIS as Appendices E and H. The FEIS was distributed to everyone who commented on the DEIS along with those on the MEQB distribution list. All written comments received on the FEIS were responded to in Appendix A of this Record Of Decision. The comment letters are attached in Appendix B. A number of postcard comments were also received during the comment period that stated opposition to the Project and general concerns about issues such as traffic congestion, air pollution, use of tax increment financing, and the taking of homes and business for private development. These comments did not address substantively the adequacy of the FEIS, but rather stated general concerns regarding the Project. These concerns were addressed in the previously published DEIS or FEIS or in Appendix A of this Record Of Decision. Copies of the postcard comments are attached in Appendix C. 5.3 THE EIS MUST HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES OF THE ACT AND PARTS 4410.0200 TO 4410.6500. The environmental review requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the MEQB Rules have been met by the EIS and related documents prepared for this Project as detailed in Section 3 Environmental Review Process of this Record Of Decision. 1 5.4 CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION 1 The City Council hereby determines that the Best Buy Campus EIS meets the three criteria set forth in the MEQB Rules and is adequate. 1 1 1 Adequacy Determination and 25 December 11, 2000 1 Record of Decision Best Buy Campus 10,001Z dlaqwao2u, S' a',, I 3,,IGmmdv voruaddy I I lj� I 10,00Z W JI'd9lualolaUl S199 UO"SdWOR7 slu'dww'PJ, � 01 sasuodsay ST' H,u.o: siallarl juam o a of sasuodsaW v x1amaddv I I APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS ON FEIS This section provides responses for all written comments received on the FEIS from agencies, groups and individuals. Comment letters are included in Appendix B. Written comments on the FEIS were received from the following agencies, groups, or individuals: 1 During the comment period a number of comment cards were delivered to the City with general comments regarding the Project. A total of 203 cards were received from individuals opposed to the project. Copies of these comments are included in Appendix C. Since all but two of these comment cards were of a general nature in opposition to the project and were not directed at the adequacy of the FEIS, they have been sorted and categorized by issue, with general responses are provided at the end of this section. A. Metropolitan Council Comment A1: The Council staff review has concluded that the FEIS is complete in regards to regional policies, plans, and concerns. Response Al: Comment noted. Comment A2: The Final EIS satisfactorily addresses the impact of the proposal on housing in the area affected. Response A2: Comment noted. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -1 • A) Metropolitan Council • B) I -494 Corridor Commission • C) City of Bloomington • D) Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP on behalf of Walser Automotive Group, Inc. • E) Felhaber, Larson Fenlon & Vogt on behalf of Fountainhead Apartments • F) ROP Investment Co., LLP on behalf of Colony Apartment Homes • G) Benshoof & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Walser Automotive Group, Inc. • • H) I) Larry Wozniczka Peggy Handt • J) Julie Erlandson • K) Minnesota Department of Transportation • L) Postcard comments 1 During the comment period a number of comment cards were delivered to the City with general comments regarding the Project. A total of 203 cards were received from individuals opposed to the project. Copies of these comments are included in Appendix C. Since all but two of these comment cards were of a general nature in opposition to the project and were not directed at the adequacy of the FEIS, they have been sorted and categorized by issue, with general responses are provided at the end of this section. A. Metropolitan Council Comment A1: The Council staff review has concluded that the FEIS is complete in regards to regional policies, plans, and concerns. Response Al: Comment noted. Comment A2: The Final EIS satisfactorily addresses the impact of the proposal on housing in the area affected. Response A2: Comment noted. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -1 11 •sumigaid juautdoianapat puu Sutsnoq slt ui luouodutoo Suisnoq aiqupiojju uu olunivna sXLmjv of Katiod s,V-dH otp si iT `shun Suisnoq aigtptojju Sutauidaz of piugaa gltM •palou luounuoo :Sy asuodsag •sizun Suzsnoq .qaq; fo ssol aqi fo asnvaaq uotgsvf auuvs agi uz pa;vsuaduuoo aq;ou 111m daq; siaumoawoq a4yun 'aauis a2uvgo asn puvl aq; fo;lnsw aq; sv paovldszp splogasnoq Yia;uai iszssv o; l uoffa djana a-lvuu pinogs platfgojy 'sa;vozptq sjgd aq; sV •slvo2 digsiau&uo algvp roffv s ;z anazgov o; .sapJo ur s•rvad OI ;xau aq; daao (sopuoa jo sasnogumol) slzun dtt1staunto algvp toffp OsI rfl tvau ppp o; paau pinona lz `s ;zun Sutsnog dzgs taumo dluo sppv pup `0I0Z ggno iql ;svoa iof sv mo 12 01 sz pla!fgozd fj : Sd luaWIHOJ •pajou sluoututoD :},fir asuodsag •satlzuatuv aovds uado pup -yivd of suotpoauuoo pano tdwi pup slovdtui Imautuo•rzaua .iamol g2no rgl tualsds aovds uado pup s!.ivd aq1 aouvqua ll m suozldo izsuvul pup sisz1of'ozq suoposapad -iof alts szgl Iv sluauuanoidutz duV (q �. walsefs aovds uadp pup s-1-tvd 1vuoz .gad aqi fo izun v of luaopfpv paivool lou s1 luautdolanap pasodoid siq,j (v :aovds uadp pup ssltpd :tdluoumoj •pa�ou juaunuoD :Er asuodsag -asn puvl ao jgp1ly aautuuo j lvuoi2aw of lvzo uautuuoD pooq togq.;zax Pup Ipzluapzsad d1lwvg al8uts 101suaa OW U104(sa lon II fo uozlvotymsvlo agl aguvgo of luautpuawv uvld aaisuaga idwoo v pazuoglnv svq Itounoj aqj •alzs aqi fo dlz uofvut agl .uof uOymi issvlo aojffp /lp jautuuoD Ivuoz.Sad s uvld ajtsuagwdutoD plalfgozd .Suzlszxa aqi glznl lualstsuoo aq pinoaa luautdolanap aolffo pasodo td aq,L : rd luawtuoa Z -V a2vd OOOZ `II .raqutaoaQ EI99 uo sdMW stuawwOO of sasuodsag •p31ou luaunuoD :LV asuodsag •valua i +000 `S s dlro aqi of dltunl toddo luawdolduta 1ptlua;od luvogtuSts v;uasa tda i luauudolaaapa i szg; uto. f llnsa t ,fvw ivgl sgoffo spuvsnogl agL :,, d luauituoj •pmoq V dH otp of pop -mAuoj aq iiiM juaututoo siU •palou munuoo :qV asuodsag -djro aql ui .Suzsnog 1plua u algvptoffv fo not a uasa td puv ;uawdolatap aqi isrssv of ;oafo id aql dq pa;v uaua2 spunf jj,L uz 000`OOL$ agl asn o; plalfgogd sa2vinooua Izounoj uvli1odorlapVag,L - gdluaumoj 11 •sumigaid juautdoianapat puu Sutsnoq slt ui luouodutoo Suisnoq aiqupiojju uu olunivna sXLmjv of Katiod s,V-dH otp si iT `shun Suisnoq aigtptojju Sutauidaz of piugaa gltM •palou luounuoo :Sy asuodsag •sizun Suzsnoq .qaq; fo ssol aqi fo asnvaaq uotgsvf auuvs agi uz pa;vsuaduuoo aq;ou 111m daq; siaumoawoq a4yun 'aauis a2uvgo asn puvl aq; fo;lnsw aq; sv paovldszp splogasnoq Yia;uai iszssv o; l uoffa djana a-lvuu pinogs platfgojy 'sa;vozptq sjgd aq; sV •slvo2 digsiau&uo algvp roffv s ;z anazgov o; .sapJo ur s•rvad OI ;xau aq; daao (sopuoa jo sasnogumol) slzun dtt1staunto algvp toffp OsI rfl tvau ppp o; paau pinona lz `s ;zun Sutsnog dzgs taumo dluo sppv pup `0I0Z ggno iql ;svoa iof sv mo 12 01 sz pla!fgozd fj : Sd luaWIHOJ •pajou sluoututoD :},fir asuodsag •satlzuatuv aovds uado pup -yivd of suotpoauuoo pano tdwi pup slovdtui Imautuo•rzaua .iamol g2no rgl tualsds aovds uado pup s!.ivd aq1 aouvqua ll m suozldo izsuvul pup sisz1of'ozq suoposapad -iof alts szgl Iv sluauuanoidutz duV (q �. walsefs aovds uadp pup s-1-tvd 1vuoz .gad aqi fo izun v of luaopfpv paivool lou s1 luautdolanap pasodoid siq,j (v :aovds uadp pup ssltpd :tdluoumoj •pa�ou juaunuoD :Er asuodsag -asn puvl ao jgp1ly aautuuo j lvuoi2aw of lvzo uautuuoD pooq togq.;zax Pup Ipzluapzsad d1lwvg al8uts 101suaa OW U104(sa lon II fo uozlvotymsvlo agl aguvgo of luautpuawv uvld aaisuaga idwoo v pazuoglnv svq Itounoj aqj •alzs aqi fo dlz uofvut agl .uof uOymi issvlo aojffp /lp jautuuoD Ivuoz.Sad s uvld ajtsuagwdutoD plalfgozd .Suzlszxa aqi glznl lualstsuoo aq pinoaa luautdolanap aolffo pasodo td aq,L : rd luawtuoa B. I494 Corridor Commission Comment BI: The Corridor Commission continues to express its concern over the inadequacy of the Best Buy proposed TDM Plan. The concerns lie in two distinct areas: a) the lack of an adequate number of preferential parking spaces (250 are proposed in the FEIS TDM Plan) b) the lack of a financial commitment on the part of Best Buy to provide additional incentives for carpoolers and vanpoolers other than those offered at the regional level to all employers. r Preferential Parking - The addition of 50 parking spaces allocated for preferential parking is valued at $7,000 per space or an additional $350,000. This brings the Best Buy Campus total committed to preferential parking to $2,100,000. Bicycles — Provide covered bike storage for 80 bicycles at a value of $9,200. Commuter Fairs — Conduct quarterly. Cost $1,000 /fair equals $4,000. CarNan Pool Parties — Conduct monthly. Cost $100 /party equals $1,200. Campus Transportation Coordinator - $50,000 per year. In addition, Best Buy is committed to provide up to $10,000 per year for the first three years after occupancy of the Site to buydown costs for car /van pools, bus passes and to support the TransitWorks program. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -3 Response Bl: a) One of the objectives of the Proposed TDM Plan is to have 275 employees using either car or van pools. The 200 car poolers would need 100 preferential parking spaces assuming two people per car pool. The 75 van poolers (at a minimum of 5 persons to a van) would need 25 preferential parking spaces. Therefore, the number of preferential parking spaces needed to achieve the reduction in peak hour trips identified would be 125 preferential parking spaces. The prior version of the TDM Plan identified 250 preferential parking spaces at the Best Buy Campus. This leaves a balance of 125 extra spaces waiting for additional poolers. Best Buy, however, is willing to commit up to a total of 4% or 300 of its spaces (based on 7,500 spaces) for preferential parking. This would be an additional 50 parking spaces allocated for car /van pooling resulting in a total of 175 extra spaces waiting for additional poolers. This addition is reflected in the Proposed TDM Plan. b) Key financial commitments that Best Buy has made in the Proposed TDM Plan follow. For a complete list, please see the TDM Budget Costs in the Proposed TDM Plan (Appendix E). r Preferential Parking - The addition of 50 parking spaces allocated for preferential parking is valued at $7,000 per space or an additional $350,000. This brings the Best Buy Campus total committed to preferential parking to $2,100,000. Bicycles — Provide covered bike storage for 80 bicycles at a value of $9,200. Commuter Fairs — Conduct quarterly. Cost $1,000 /fair equals $4,000. CarNan Pool Parties — Conduct monthly. Cost $100 /party equals $1,200. Campus Transportation Coordinator - $50,000 per year. In addition, Best Buy is committed to provide up to $10,000 per year for the first three years after occupancy of the Site to buydown costs for car /van pools, bus passes and to support the TransitWorks program. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -3 Comment B2: The Commission strongly urges the City of Richfield to require a signed letter of corporate intent to follow the revised TDMPlan included as part of the Final EIS document. Response B2: The City agrees that the Proposed TDM Plan should be a requirement of Best Buy approvals. For this reason, the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit contains a condition that a TDM Plan be submitted to and approved by the City. C. City of Bloomington Comment Cl: The Final EIS states that a maximum of 15,000 cubic yards of soil will be removed from the site. The proposed truck route for soil removal is Penn Avenue to I -494. Will all soil removal be accomplished before the Penn AvenuelI -494 Interchange closure in January of 2002? If not, what truck route would be used for soil removal? Plans for roadway cleaning along the truck route should be developed and added to the Final EIS Response Cl: Based on the construction schedule described in the FEIS for the 76'h Street and the Penn Avenue Bridge, it is anticipated that at least half of the 15,000 cubic yards of soil would be removed prior to the Penn Avenue Bridge being closed. Due to the requirement to maintain the frontage road between Knox and Penn open until the signal is installed at Knox and 76h Street, some Site material will need to be hauled off -Site after the closure of the bridge. In this case, the alternate route for soil removal would be either from Knox to 76th Street to I -35W, or from Knox to 76th /77tb to Lyndale to I-494. As described in FEIS Section 4.1.3 b (page 4 -2), gravel exit pads will be provided at all Site exits to minimize dirt deposits on the adjacent roadways and mechanical road sweeping will be conducted regularly during construction to remove dirt spills on to these streets. The plan for these measures will be in compliance with City policies. Preparation and approval of a final Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, including these details, is a condition of the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Comment C2: The Final EIS indicates that post development quality and quantity of surface water runoff are improved over pre- development levels due to the proposed pond system. Bloomington encourages implementation of the recommended surface water runoff mitigation measures. Response C2: Comment noted. The proposed surface water mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Storm Water Management Plan required by the City for this Project. The final Storm Water Management Plan will be reviewed and Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -4 t f i approved as a condition to the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. Comment C3: Bloomington continues to recommend that the 9,500 employee /1.9 million square feet alternative not be further pursued. Response C3: Comment noted. The City prefers the 7,500 employee option. Comment C4: To minimize the impact on the Bloomington street system,. Bloomington continues to recommend aggressive transportation demand management (TDM) requirements be put in place, including staggered work schedules for employees. Response C4: Comment noted. The City agrees that a TDM Plan should be a requirement of Best Buy approvals. For this reason, the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit contains a condition that a TDM Plan be submitted to and approved by the City. See Proposed TDM plan in Appendix E regarding the goals for staggered and flexible work hours. Comment C5: Occupancy of the Best Buy Campus should not occur until completion of the new Penn Avenue /I -494 Interchange is in place and fully operational. Response C5: Occupancy will not be allowed until the bridge and ramps are operational, with the exception of the on -Site daycare operation. It is expected that this will be a condition of the Indirect Source Permit. Comment C6: Bloomington continues to encourage the use of a free right turn from Penn Avenue into the project site to facilitate traffic movement on Penn Avenue. Response C6: The City agrees and therefore is requiring the right turn lane from Penn Avenue to the Site as described in the FEIS. Comment C7: Relocation of two large water mains will be required: a) any relocation of the water mains necessitated by the project should be funded by the project b) a reconstruction plan and schedule needs to be determined, and approved by Bloomington Public Works taking into consideration such issues as shut -down timing and ensuring sufficient water supply to Bloomington. Response C7: a) It is not the function of the EIS to identify funding sources. Funding required of the Project proposer will be identified in the Development Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -5 1 Agreement between Best Buy and the City that must be completed prior to commencement of construction. _ b) The Project proposer has been and will continue to coordinate with the City and the City of Bloomington on the timing of the water main relocations as previously discussed with the Cities and described in the FEIS (Response G4, page 17 -15) and DEIS (page 11 -3). Comment C8: Penn Avenue and I -494 Interchange reconstruction should be closely y coordinated with MnDOT, Bloomington, and area businesses and residents to minimize negative impacts. Response CS: The City will stipulate in its contract with the bridge contractor incentives for early completion and penalties for delays. The City intends to limit the bridge closure for the minimal amount of time necessary to complete the work. ... Several meetings have occurred with the tenants and open houses were conducted to inform businesses and residents of the planned bridge construction schedule Comment C9: The City should continue to work with MnDOT to facilitate an alternative temporary I -494 Interchange at Xerxes Avenue. The Penn Avenue/I- -494 Interchange should be completely operational before significant work begins on the Lyndale Avenue/I- -494 Interchange. Response C9: The City will continue to work with MnDOT on the temporary Xerxes exit ramp. The City does not intend to close*or start significant work on the Lyndale/I -494 Interchange until the Penn Avenue Interchange is completed. D. Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP on behalf of Walser Automotive Group Once again, this commentor offers general criticisms which do not cite specific deficiencies in the FEIS or suggest specific additional analyses which might be helpful. The City again attempted via voice messages to obtain clarifications of Mr. Malkerson's comments. Mr. Malkerson replied via voice message that he would not be available for at least a week to respond. Therefore,-the responses provided are also general. Comment D1: The pace that the City has set (and been maintaining) for this environmental review is much too aggressive given the proposed project. Response Dl: The City disagrees that the schedule for this EIS is much too aggressive. The City began work on this environmental review in April and expects to complete the review in December, a period of nine months. From Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -6 [I u 1 publication of the Scoping EAW on May 15, 2000, to the date of expected City Council action on adequacy on December 11, 2000, will be eight months. These are reasonable time frames which allow adequate time for analysis and comment. In comparison, the City understands that EIS level environmental reviews for projects of comparable size and complexity have been completed in slightly more than six months. Comment D2: In several sections of the FEIS, the analysis is not at all thoughtful or searching, and at times it is conclusory. Response D2: In stating that that the analysis in several sections is "not at all thoughtful or searching," the commentor does not identify any section of either the DEIS or the FEIS to which the comment applies. Nor does the commentor suggest additional analyses which might improve the information provided. The City disagrees with this comment and believes that all the potentially significant environmental impacts have been analyzed at the level of detail required for an EIS. In stating that the analysis in several sections is "at times conclusory," the commentor does not identify any section of either the DEIS or the FEIS to which the comment applies. An EIS must draw conclusions about impact levels and the applicability of mitigation measures. Without some specific reference to a conclusion in the EIS as unsupported or wrong, a more specific response is not possible. Comment D3: Since publication of the DEIS, the City has obtained Metropolitan Council approval of comprehensive plan amendments that are necessitated by the proposed Best Buy Campus. Similarly, the Richfield Planning Commission has (1) approved rezoning of the project property, (2) approved a conditional use permit for the project, and (3) approved a PUD plan for the project. The granting of these approvals violates EQB rules and increases the likelihood that the project will be developed as currently proposed. 1 Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -7 Response D3: The MEQB Rules prohibit making a "final governmental decision ... to grant a permit, approve a project or begin a project until an EIS is determined adequate." None of the actions cited by the commentor are final governmental decisions. The Metropolitan Council review and approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment has no legal effect on the Project until the City Council adopts the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Richfield Planning Commission's actions are advisory to the City Council. The City Council will not make final governmental approvals with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, rezoning, PUD plan or a conditional use permit for the Project until after a determination of EIS adequacy. 1 Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -7 Comment D4: The FEIS does not compare the proposal with any alternative site. In other words, a critical component of the EIS was handled privately by Best Buy before the environmental review process began, without governmental or public input, and without a meaningful comparison of environmental effects. Response D4: The Scoping Decision did not require that an alternative site for the Project be addressed in the DEIS. The commentor did not raise this issue in the scoping process and has not challenged the Scoping Decision. Comment D5: The FEIS does consider alternative designs and project scales, but the consideration is artificial. Response D5: The comment is noted. The City disagrees. Significant differences exist between the designs presented in Alternatives 1 and 2. Both designs were under serious consideration by Best Buy at the beginning of the EIS process. The City determines as part of this Record Of Decision that Alternative 2 is preferable based on the EIS analysis. The density differences between Option A and Option B under each alternative are not artificial. Best Buy asked to consider a greater density on the Site in case corporate growth exceeded expectations. As shown particularly in the traffic analysis, Option B under either alternative design presents significant problems. The City in this adequacy determination has selected Option A with 7,500 employees as the preferred option. Comment D6: The FEIS also describes only two density alternatives. Response D6: The Scoping Decision did not require analysis of more than the two density options. The commentor did not raise this issue during the scoping process and has not challenged the Scoping Decision. Comment D7:. One of the most significant effects of the proposed Best Buy Campus would be the loss of some 170 units of affordable housing. The FEIS does not examine a) whether the loss of this housing will push the displaced residents toward the outer reaches of the metropolitan area; b) the effect that the loss of this housing will have on remaining sections of this neighborhood, c) what concrete measures the City of Richfield will take to replace these housing units or otherwise mitigate the effects of the loss. Response D7: There are 169 housing units within the Interchange West area (89 apartments units, 54 single family homes, and 26 duplex units). Providing an adequate supply of affordable housing is a significant regional issue, and the City has long been a leader in doing so. However, a focus only on Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -8 1 1 1 1 i J 1 1 affordability hinders the City's ability to meet other community needs, which include providing a broader range of housing types and prices. The City and the Metropolitan Council have established "Livable Communities" goals to provide greater economic integration of the City's housing stock. A 1999 revision of the goals indicates that Richfield's owner - occupied housing is 86 percent affordable (for households earning 80% of the median income), and its renter - occupied housing is 64 percent affordable. The affordability benchmark set by the Metropolitan Council for Richfield is 64 to 77 percent for owner- occupied housing and 32 to 45 percent for renter - occupied housing. Therefore, the City exceeds the Metropolitan Council's benchmark. Using the Metropolitan Council affordability levels for the City and applying it to the Interchange West area result in the following assumptions of affordability: 57 owner occupied units would be considered affordable and 65 renter - occupied housing units would be considered affordable (total of 122). The Metropolitan Council comment on the FEIS recognizes that the Best Buy Campus project does not negatively impact the City's housing goals stating that, "The Final EIS for the Best Buy Campus satisfactorily addresses the impact of the proposal on housing in the area affected." a) The City has experienced a loss of housing from airport and road expansion and redevelopment projects in the past and has always sought to relocate within Richfield as many of those households as possible. For example, in the case of the New Ford Town/Rich Acres buyout by the airport, 25 to 30 percent of the households relocated in Richfield. Assuming a similar percentage in the Interchange West area, 42 to 59 of the households could be expected to relocate in Richfield. b) The housing units within the project area make up the entire neighborhood. The neighborhood is isolated by 7e Street on the north, Penn Avenue on the west and commercial uses on the south and east. c) The City has experienced the loss of housing units and population due to airport expansion, roadway projects, and demographic factors and, on an ongoing basis, seeks to replace these losses through its housing and redevelopment programs. Because the Best Buy Campus does not include a physical housing component, a portion of the Project tax increment ($7 million) is being dedicated to Richfield's housing fund. The funds will be used to construct new and rehabilitate existing housing. With regard to replacing affordable housing units, despite the significant amount of affordable housing existing in the community, it is the HRA's policy to always evaluate an affordable housing component in its housing and redevelopment programs. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -9 Comment D8: The Penn Avenue Bridge reconstruction to a single point diamond interchange and the widening of Penn Avenue are of such size and regional importance that they should be the subject of an independent environmental review process that is coordinated with the preparation of an EIS on the proposed Best Buy Campus project. Response D8: While it is true that both the Penn Avenue Interchange project and the 76th Street Reconstruction project have been programmed to be completed even without the Best Buy Campus, the mandatory requirements for state environmental reviews for roadway projects are not met by either road project. According to Minn. Rules 4410.4300, subp. 22, a road reconstruction project must be at least one mile in length and add new travel lanes to require preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The 76th Street project adds additional travel lanes but does not exceed one mile in length. The Penn Avenue Project also adds additional travel lanes but does not exceed one mile in length. Interchange projects only require state environmental review when they are proposed in a new location. Therefore, the size of these road improvement projects does not warrant independent environmental review under the MEQB Rules. The federal environmental review process requires a Project Memorandum to be completed for the Penn Avenue Bridge project. This environmental document was prepared by MnDOT and the City and is being reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration. Review of the Project Memorandum is expected to be complete by the end of December, 2000. A federal environmental review is not required for the 76th Street Reconstruction Project. Comment D9: There is no analysis of the impact of rerouted traffic (and related noise and carbon monoxide levels) through residential neighborhoods and elsewhere while the Penn Avenue Interchange is under construction. Response D9: The traffic detour plan for the Penn Avenue Bridge project is illustrated in Figure 12.4 of the FEIS. The reference to this figure was omitted in the FEIS. With the closure of the Penn Avenue Bridge, the traffic volumes on 82"d Street between Penn Avenue and I -35W are expected to increase approximately 100 percent. On 80a' Street, the traffic volumes are expected to decrease by approximately 10% between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue, but increase by approximately 35% between Xerxes Avenue and France Avenue. Table A -1 lists the 1998 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes from the MnDOT Traffic Flow Maps, the approximate capacities of the roadways, and the estimated ADT volumes during the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge for these roadways. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -10 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 t f� j Table A -1: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes, 1998 I Volumes taken from the MnDOT Traffic Flow Maps (vehicles per day) As can be seen from this table, the available capacities of these roadways are expected to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes on 80th Street and 82 "a Street during the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. The 76th Street reconstruction project would not require a detour since the roadway is expected to have one lane in each direction remain open during construction, with the exception of temporary shut downs as utilities are worked on. The 76th Street construction- related impacts will be temporary and occur only within the 2001 construction season. Alternative routes available for traffic would be I-494, 80th and 82nd Streets. After review of the detour plan for the Penn Avenue Bridge project and the associated traffic analysis, additional noise analysis was conducted for 82 "a Street between Penn Avenue and I -35W. The model showed no impact for the temporary noise increase expected from increased traffic volumes along 82 "a due to the Penn Avenue Bridge closure. All other increases in traffic due to the bridge closure were less than the analyzed intersection and, therefore, can be predicted to have no impact. See Comment D 10 for noise model results. Comment D10: The noise analysis in the FEIS does not include impacts on other relevant receptors, which, as you know, would include especially all residential and other Noise Area Classification Uses pursuant to Minnesota Rules 7030.0050. Response D10: The noise analysis in the FEIS identified receptors that represented locations that had worst case conditions for potential noise impact. Standard procedures outlined by the MPCA were followed. It is reasonable to assume that, if there were no or little impact for the worst case receptors, other receptors in the vicinity would have the same or less of an impact. An additional analysis was conducted to include the addition of the church/school located on the corner of 76th and Penn (Receptor N-4) to identify the level of impact to this type of sensitive noise receptor. Additional analysis was also completed for the residential area along 82 "d between I -35W and Penn (Receptor N -5) as a sensitive noise receptor during the construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. To complete the documented analysis, the AM peak and year 2022 analysis for all five identified sensitive noise receptors were also analyzed (see Figure 1). Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A-11 ADT After Best 1998 ADT During Buy ADT Capacity Construction Development Location d ' d d d 82nd St b/t Penn & I -35W 8,200 23,000 16,400 8,650 80 St b/t Penn & Xerxes 13,700 34,000 12,330 13,850 801h St b/t Xerxes & France 12,500 34,000 16,875 1 12,650 I Volumes taken from the MnDOT Traffic Flow Maps (vehicles per day) As can be seen from this table, the available capacities of these roadways are expected to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes on 80th Street and 82 "a Street during the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. The 76th Street reconstruction project would not require a detour since the roadway is expected to have one lane in each direction remain open during construction, with the exception of temporary shut downs as utilities are worked on. The 76th Street construction- related impacts will be temporary and occur only within the 2001 construction season. Alternative routes available for traffic would be I-494, 80th and 82nd Streets. After review of the detour plan for the Penn Avenue Bridge project and the associated traffic analysis, additional noise analysis was conducted for 82 "a Street between Penn Avenue and I -35W. The model showed no impact for the temporary noise increase expected from increased traffic volumes along 82 "a due to the Penn Avenue Bridge closure. All other increases in traffic due to the bridge closure were less than the analyzed intersection and, therefore, can be predicted to have no impact. See Comment D 10 for noise model results. Comment D10: The noise analysis in the FEIS does not include impacts on other relevant receptors, which, as you know, would include especially all residential and other Noise Area Classification Uses pursuant to Minnesota Rules 7030.0050. Response D10: The noise analysis in the FEIS identified receptors that represented locations that had worst case conditions for potential noise impact. Standard procedures outlined by the MPCA were followed. It is reasonable to assume that, if there were no or little impact for the worst case receptors, other receptors in the vicinity would have the same or less of an impact. An additional analysis was conducted to include the addition of the church/school located on the corner of 76th and Penn (Receptor N-4) to identify the level of impact to this type of sensitive noise receptor. Additional analysis was also completed for the residential area along 82 "d between I -35W and Penn (Receptor N -5) as a sensitive noise receptor during the construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. To complete the documented analysis, the AM peak and year 2022 analysis for all five identified sensitive noise receptors were also analyzed (see Figure 1). Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A-11 1 Traffic noise analyses were completed for Options A and B for both the AM and PM Peak Hours in both 2003 and 2022. In addition, a noise analysis for the temporary construction detour for the Penn Avenue Bridge was performed. In 2003 during the AM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just perceptible at Receptors N -1 (77th Street and Penn Avenue) and N -2 (Newton Avenue at 76th Street). The additional noise from Option B traffic would be clearly perceptible at Receptor N -1. In 2003 during the PM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2. The additional noise from Option B traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2. In 2022 during the AM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A (compared to 2003 No- Build) traffic would be clearly perceptible at Receptors N -1 and N-4 (Penn Avenue at 76th Street). The additional noise from Option B traffic would be clearly perceptible at Receptor N -1. In 2022 during the PM Peak Hour, the additional noise from Option A traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2 and clearly perceptible at Receptor N-4. The additional noise from Option B traffic would be just perceptible at Receptor N -2. The additional noise from temporary detour traffic at Receptor N -5 (Logan Avenue and 82Nd Street) would not be perceptible. No mitigation is required. A screen wall could be constructed for a two block - long segment north of 76th Street from Logan Avenue to Newton Avenue. However, residents in the neighborhood will need to support the wall and the changes in access that would be needed to build a wall. Several homes that have direct access to 76th Street would need to relocate their driveways to the north- south avenues. I It ll Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -12 Table A -2: Predicted Noise Levels for Option A (AM Peak) Receptor Predicted Llo and L50 Noise Level (dBA) No Build 2003 (with existing geometry) Year 2003 Build Option A: 7,500 Year 2022 Build Option A: 7,500 Lto Lso Lto Lso Lio Lso N -1 67 60 69 63 70 64 N -2 69 62 71 65 .70 63 N-32 59 52 60 52 59 51 N-4 64 60 65 61 67 64 N -5 67 61 68 61 N/A N/A Daytime L10 State Standard' 65 60 65 60 65 60 Daytime Li0 and L50 State Standard are shown for reference only: the streets analyzed are exempt from the State Standards. Z Noise barriers are in place between Lyndale Avenue and the closest residence. 3 Temporary increase in traffic generated noise due to construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Table A -3: Predicted Noise Levels for Option A (PM Peak) Receptor Predicted L10 and L50 Noise Level (dBA) No Build 2003 (with existing geometry) Year 2003 Build Option A: 7,500 Year 2022 Build Option A: 7,500 Lto Lso Lto Lso Lto Lso N -1 68 62 69 63 70 64 N -2 68 62 71 65 71 65 N-32 58 52 60 53 59 51 N -4 65 61 65 62 68 65 N -5 68 62 68 62 N/A N/A Daytime LIO State Standard' 65 60 65 60 65 60 Daytime L10 and L50 State Standard are shown for reference only: the streets analyzed are exempt from the State Standards. z Noise barriers are in place between Lyndale Avenue and the closest residence. 3 Temporary increase in traffic generated noise due to construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -13 Table A4: Predicted Noise Levels for Option B (AM Peak) Receptor Predicted L10 and L50 Noise Level (dBA) No Build 2003 (with existing geometry) Year 2003 Build Option B: 9,500 Year 2022 Build Option B: 9,500 Lio L5o Lto Lso Llo L5o N -1 67 60 70 64 70 64 N -2 69 62 70 64 - 70 64 N-32 59 52 59 52 59 51 N -4 64 60 65 61 65 61 N -5 3 67 61 68 61 N/A N/A Daytime Llo State Standard' 65 60 65 60 65 60 Daytime LI0 and L50 State Standard are shown for reference only: the streets analyzed are exempt from the State Standards. 2 Noise barriers are in place between Lyndale Avenue and the closest residence. 3 Temporary increase in traffic generated noise due to construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Table A -5: Predicted Noise Levels for Option B (PM Peak) Receptor Predicted L10 and L5o Noise Level (dBA) No Build 2003 (with existing geometry) Year 2003 Build Option B: 9,500 Year 2022 Build Option B: 9,500 Llo Lso Lio Lso Llo Lso N -I 68 62 70 64 70 64 N -2 68 62 71 65 71 65 N-32 58 52 60 53 59 51 N -4 65 61 65 62 66 62 N -5 3 68 62 68 62 N/A N/A Daytime Lto State Standard' 65 60 65 60 65 -60 Daytime L10 and 1,50 State Standard are shown for reference only: the streets analyzed are exempt from the State Standards. 2 Noise barriers are in place between Lyndale Avenue and the closest residence. 3 Temporary increase in traffic generated noise due to construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -14 8 ' JIM a. tM Sensitive Nois ail T. le Lj Jim tz jo, RICHFIELD F1 h, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Comment DII: There is not an adequate analysis of the noise in the FEIS which will emanate from the Best Buy Campus or an adequate analysis of the impacts of noise from vehicles traveling to and from the Best Buy Campus. Response D11: The impact of noise from Site - related traffic was addressed in Section 8.0 of the DEIS and additional analysis provided in the previous response (D 10). Site - generated noise was briefly addressed in response to comment I2 of the FEIS. Based on current site plans, the following information is added to that analysis. Four outdoor cooling towers will be located next to the-southeast edge of the parking ramp. These towers will operate in conjunction with chillers located in the basement of one or more of the four buildings. The outdoor cooling towers will include a fan. A 12 -foot concrete wall will be built between the cooling towers and Knox Avenue as a preventive noise mitigation measure. The concrete wall will serve as a buffer for the residences east of Knox Avenue. The cooling towers are located in an area insulated by the five story- parking ramps to further suppress any noise emitted. The closest resident is 150 feet from the cooler location. At this distance, the sound pressure level from the cooling towers would be 62 to 64 dB without the concrete walls. These walls will reduce these levels well below the state standards and the below the traffic - related noise. No other outdoor noise generating uses are planned for the Best Buy Site. Therefore, no impact will result to sensitive noise receptors due the Site - generated noise. Comment D12: The carbon monoxide analysis in the FEIS does not include a sufficient number of receptor sites which are affected by the project and the analysis to date was based on a faulty and incomplete traffic analysis. Response D12: The methodology for identifying potential local air quality impacts follows the EPA - recommended procedure for CO microscale impact analysis. The general evaluation procedure, outlined in the Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections (EPA, 1992), includes a multiple- intersection screening process, followed by microscale CO analysis with the EPA CAL3QHC line- source dispersion model. Based on common practice for air quality analysis, a sufficient number of receptor sites were analyzed to provide an accurate CO forecast for this Project. As the levels in the FEIS indicate, the worst case scenario CO levels are well below state standards. Because the selected intersections represent the worst locations in the study area in terms of traffic volume and vehicular delay, it is reasonable to conclude that other locations in the study area would not experience violations of the ambient CO standards under either of the proposed options. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -17 1 8!-v a8vd OOOZ I! .ragwaoaa STVJ uo S-MP7 sluaww0J o; sasuodsag •rOjadoid agl uo aavg lllm anuaAV xoux of ssaoov dpagmou s pvaq znluno j fo uoilmilurla jvgj sjovdwi lvuajvw agl ssaippv iou saop Sjyg aqL - SSgDDV : jg mauiuioo •pailddu aq lliM sasuodsa.i snoina xd atp a toja taq jL •sisAluuu luuoiltppu jo snooj atp 130.11p pinoen goignn patio on soiouaiogop ogioads ou `ianamOH '(b I f ggnoatp I f sasuodsa21 puu sluouxutoD) SHE oqj ui paluls su suoiloofgo snoina.xd aq) alu.xodxoout of pualut saoluounuoo aqL sluatupod,V pvaqupjuno3 aqj jo siaumo l•auI Idnoaf) juatuagousW puelggig jo ;lugaq uo J%oA 79 uolua,3 uos tuZ aagvq ja j •g •pa.xousi SIad aqj xo SIgQ aqj goigen;oafoJd juunalQJ Auu K3ijuapi IOU saop Joluautuxoo aqI `luauxuxoo siq� pup ;uauxuxoo snoina.xd siq gpoq ul -Apms jo uatu juunalat - auxus aqj Sutlouduxt spafotd uopm4suoo japun io panozddu `Supsixo .tatpo tpyA uopunfuoo ut spuduxi s joafotd atp .tapisuoo op SIg3 aqp Put, SIgQ aq,.L • asuodsa uopo ut aqj ut a tnoid asuodsoi 8I 2I L I S . SIg3 g . P P. otp jo opuux st juautaspalmompu oil 'SIgQ alp of joadsw pm Jaual S,JOJuaututoo alp ui apuux Iuautuxoo aqp 01 luoiluaPi Xllutu xin si luauxuxoo su g,L :tiiQ asuodsag -dpnis fo va iv juvaalai awns aqj .Suzjovduiz uozlon usuoo wpun to paao iddv 'pauuvld aiv goigm sjoafoid lvyuajod io sjoalojd yiaq ;o q ;lm uoyounfuoo uz loalo ld pasodo id aql fo siovdwi aql .iaPlsuoo dla;vnbapv lou saop Sjgd ag,L :PI a mawtuoa • a a duioo atu `s uauxanoid Xunn uo oafot o tun atdn000 a louuuo Phi � �I P 2I; d �I.� P. q sndumD Ang isag aqp asnuoag jouduu ou st atagl `SIg oqj ut pauxnssu south otp Xq pajaldutoo gutoq IOU sIuautanoiduxl Aumpuog loofoad otp you issu o ;1oadsax ql!A& •sisAluu, otp ui Aouaiogap ogioads Auu Apluopi IOU saop ioluauxuxoa oqj `juaututoo snotna .Td siq pug luouxuxoo sigi uI •uoisioa(I jo pxooag Sup ui puu SIgd aqp jo S'Zi Put, 0'S suol S `SIgu aqu jo g xipuaddV puu 0•S uotloaS ui sisAluuu otgjun pagulop u paluasatd suq SIg aqL 'LI asuodsa21 `LI uo.1oaS ut SIg3 age ui papinotd asuodsat atp jo opuux st luaumSpop Aou3lou ox •SIgQ agp of joadsw qj!m ia:4al siq ui apuut .toluoutuxoo atp su autos otp Apouxa st luauxuxoo stU :£IQ asuodsag Sjag aqj ui pazunssv saKil aqi dq paialdwoo iou a xv Sjgg puv SjgQ agl uz gmof jas s�fvmpvo i oT1Qnd aqz of sluautaaoddiuz pawnssv uzvmao fi joafodd aqj fo jovdtuz aqj ssaippv djaivnbapv iou saop puv ZZOZ puv £OOZ uaanalaq vvad aq; .iof sf'vmpvo.1 oz1Rnd aqi uo loafo id aql fo lovdwz aql ssa ippv flaivnbapv lou saop Sjgg aq, j : £ jQ ;uawwoa 1 II u 1 t u t 77 � I w Response El: The worst -case impacts that could result to Fountainhead's northerly access from the various alternatives that are being considered for the south 76h Street alignment and Knox Avenue intersection at 761' Street include the loss of approximately 20 garages and loss of the northerly access into the property. The garages would either be replaced at a different location on the on the property through a payment of a damage award by the City or Fountainhead would be compensated for their loss. The northerly access would require a loss of the one way internal drive, requiring modifications to adapt it for two way traffic. In an effort to mitigate the access impact, the City has been meeting with Fountainhead to discuss the potential alternatives for mitigation. - -Based on meetings with Fountainhead representatives, a new alternative has been identified which has Knox Avenue as a four- legged intersection that is shined slightly to the west. The details of the intersection layout are being designed as part of the 76th Street Reconstruction project. This alternative allows Fountainhead to retain their northerly access, and also to allow the Colony Apartment Complex access to be connected at the intersection. This alternative would reduce the setback for the Best Buy parking ramp. The proposed design for this intersection was found to be favorable by both apartment complexes. Comment E2: ACCESS: The FEIS does not offer any clear indication or commitment to maintaining reasonable access to Fountainhead during reconstruction of 76th Street. Response E2: The FEIS (Response J2, page 17 -22) describes how access to the current frontage road will be maintained between Knox and Penn until approximately November of 2001, at which time the 76`" Street improvements (specifically the signal at 76h Street and Knox) will be completed. At least one lane on 76h Street will remain open during the 76th Street reconstruction. So for the first eight months of construction (April 2001 to November 2001) there would be no change to the current access at Fountainhead or Galyan's. After November 2001, the access to Fountainhead and Galyan's will be via the improved intersection at Knox and 76h Street. Comment E3: PARKING: The DEIS and FEIS acknowledge that the City's preferred alignment of 76Th Street to the south will require the taking and /or reconstruction of Fountainhead garages now located on the north side of the site. Yet no information is supplied about the number of garages impacted by the City's plans, or how Fountainhead will be able to replace or relocate those spaces, as well as the 18 public parking spaces located on Knox. The lack of information is perhaps even more significant if Best Buy elects to pursue the 9500 employee development alternative. Response E3: There are 20 garages being impacted by the south realignment of 76'h Street. The City is proposing no net loss in on -site parking at Fountainhead Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -19 LJ f OZ-N aSvd OOOZ `II.ragwaoaQ SI9J uo saa107 sluawwo,7 o1 sasuodsad of ssaj2a puv ssa 2uz apadtut dIlvv Calm pinoo siyL -d'vm fo iy2u ayi y1im olffv4 dng isag 2tgdjddns dq anuaAV xoux punogquou of sivaptsw pvarluzvlunod fb ssaoou sapadzuz rllnos aqj 01 anions Suzalrvd s dng isag fo uotivoolar aq :9g ivatutuoj sut?ld uotIotu4su0302t 13345 ,,9L oql jo fired sia Iun,otd R JOJ Ipunoo Ajt3 atll of pautuzgns oq 1pm uotloasaalut anuan v xou}l oql .toj jumnativ, Isug aqj • I g osuodsag ooS •pougai mile j Eutoq st puu pagtluopt uaaq suq uotldo alqu toAvj u s2utaaaut osogl uo possg •possnostp pum pagtjuapt uaaq anuq suotldo lVuotjtpps `sant}ejuasatdat puatlutejuno3 tplm s5upaut q Sno T `pogstlgnd suns slg3 atp aouts •uotloasmiut anuoAV xouX oql joj suotldo luouut2tlu jugualod lqgta pagguapt Slgd aq.L •spudurt aztuuutut of pasn oq pinoo juip satnsiatu IetIuaIod X3tlu3pt of tatllu.t jnq `atnseaut uotjugtItut pa opid aqj asootlo of Slg aqj jo uotjounj oql jou st it :Sg asuodsag R paioalas aq Il m luawa; i1v goiq R alvozpur iou saop inq uozloasamki laa4E uJyZ/anua tV xoux aql aof'sivawugily lvrivalod irlSta siszl Slg4 aq,L :Sg ivauiwoj •peo2I a ,3u1uot3 WOW t6b-I oql jo aansop atp of onp s,uuAluD tuog satunlon ogJR.0 ut osuamut otp apnlout op stslClnuv otp ut pasn anuand xou}l uo suotjoafoJd aumlon oql `ajopiotLL •uopoostalut anuand xott}l pue WAS pgL atP stn suotIMol asatp ssaoou of 31jonA4au oql 1nogliino g jt gutjngtustpai Aq xaldutoD juau4ndy puaglutvjunoq atp jo s,uuAluq ssaoou a qip of plot aguluog otp pasn Imp ogjuu otp .toj palun000u Slg pue Apn4S joudutl ogju i L oql ioj stsAluue atl,l, - I ooz JaqutanoN jnogL1 .ta}ln sanuan.V uuad puu xou}l uoom4zq panotuas aq llya pumd a ,S'91uot3 WON VM7-I otg `sndumD Ang isag posodotd atg jo uoptu4suoo atP tPtnn `(SIg3jo Zf luoutuxoo of asuodsoU) SIg aqj ut poquosop suns sV :tg asuodsag •aql pvoj a2vluo..[ uvgll .ratliv.[ `xoux asn 11pt o ffaq s uv flvJ 11v Ivgl uz lvz uaivw aq of paloadxa aq d'vut lovdwz sztf.L -anuaAV uuad of xoux wo.�(pvw agvluodf g1nos aqi fo .Suzsolo luauvuuad aqj Xq pasnvo aq 11 m ivgi anuaAV xoux uo iovdwz aql .cof lun000v lou saop luazudolmap aadoldwa OOS`L agl .cof anua tV xoux uo olffv cl -,of uozloafo id au - D&JVY,L .Pg;uatuuiog •13udtut lutiuvisgns u pajaptsuoo you st saouds gunitud laoRs -uo gI powuuiso uu jo uot�Eutuula atg `o.iojontLL •Sullmd laaus -jjo alunbopu aptnozd of paloadxo ate sat�taclaid a}Vnud •juautdolanap aIunud toy guqmd otlgnd .to laaus -uo aalttmnnff you saoptD ally •sanuu�uasa�da� puaglapjunoq put. X113 aqj uaann oq Ino pwponn Sutaq 3n uouundguooaa atp jo sltulap aqj •alts -uo gupl -md jo uopmaguoaa.t ggnoigi L7 1 1 t I t Fountainhead at its only point of access to Knox Avenue. The FEIS does not address that complication. Response E6: If the access to Best Buy's parking ramp structure is located south of the access to the Fountainhead Apartments, vehicles leaving the Fountainhead Apartments will be expected to stop for vehicles traveling north on Knox Avenue. These vehicles leaving the Fountainhead Apartments will also need to stop for vehicles traveling north from Galyan's. Vehicles leaving the Best Buy parking ramp will also have to stop and give the right -of -way for vehicles traveling on Knox Avenue. Therefore, all vehicles that wish to access Knox Avenue from a private access driveway must stop and give the right of way to vehicles on Knox Avenue. The Best Buy access points onto Knox Avenue will have stop signs. Because vehicles leaving the Best Buy parking ramp will be required to stop, a gap in traffic will be created on Knox Avenue for each stopping vehicle. This is expected to allow vehicles exiting/entering the Fountainhead Apartments to enter onto Knox Avenue northbound or enter into the apartment complex. Additionally, the on- street parking is expected to be removed to accommodate a second lane for northbound traffic on Knox Avenue. Therefore, vehicles leaving the Fountainhead Apartments would be able to make a right turn from the complex into the near northbound lane, which would be expected to minimize the conflict with vehicles leaving the Best Buy Campus. Further discussions with Highland Management have indicated that they are satisfied with the access points on Knox as described in the FEIS. Comment E7: The FEIS does not address in any fashion the reasons for, or the impact of, that extension of the construction period (from June 2002 to November 2002) on the community. Response E7: The Project construction schedule identified in the DEIS (Section 2.3, page 2 -4) described demolition starting in April of 2001, with grading and construction to start in May 2001. Construction would continue through November of 2002, with a phased move into the completed buildings starting in June of 2002. The total length of the construction schedule described was approximately 20 months; it did not assume construction would be completed in June 2002. The Final EIS identified (Section 2.3, page 2 -1) a change to the Project schedule, which only delayed the phased move in until November of 2002. The delay in the phased move in of Best Buy employees would not impact the overall construction schedule since construction was originally planned to occur between June and November of 2002. The construction period remains at 20 months. Therefore, Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -21 1 there are no impacts to be addressed, since the construction period had not changed from the DEIS to the FEIS. The purpose of the change in the phased move in dates was to alleviate concerns presented by the City of Bloomington, the I -494 Corridor Commission and MnDOT, which were included and discussed in the FEIS response to comments section. Additionally, it is anticipated that there will be occupancy restrictions set by the MPCA's Indirect Source Permit that will not allow significant occupancy of the Site until the Project Roadway Improvements are completed. Occupancy of the Site, except for daycare operations, was changed to occur only after the reconstructed Penn Avenue Bridge is operational, which is scheduled for November of 2002. Comment E8: The FEIS demonstrates that a 9,500 employee development simply cannot be accommodated at the proposed site. Response E8: Comment noted. As described in the Findings Section of this document (Section 4.25), the City's preferred development density option is the 7,500 employee option. Comment E9: The failure of the FEIS to resolve or mitigate the project's material adverse impacts on Fountainhead should result in the City's determination that it is inadequate, barring pursuit of the project until those adverse impacts are satisfactorily remedied or eliminated. Response E9: See response to comments E 1 and E5. Based on recent coordination meetings with the Apartment representatives, these issues have been resolved. F. ROP Investment Company on behalf of Colony Apartment Homes Comment FI: We have agreed that acceptable designs for the intersection of West 76'h Street and Knox Avenue are either Option #6 or Option V. Either of these two options will work for Colony Apartments and for Fountainhead Apartments without unduly impacting on property for the benefit of the other: , Response Fl: Comment noted. The City has identified a design that has the potential to improve access to 7e Street for Colony apartments. See Response E 1. Based on recent coordination meetings with the Apartment representatives, these issues have been resolved. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -22 £Z-d a$nd OOOZ '[f aa4ujaaaa EI,7g uo valla7 s;uawwoD of sasuodsad •ssaoon uo suopoylsw Bans u{o if Pooq roggStau Sututolpn agl uo pun sluawm,vdV duoloo aq1 of sloodutt agl .iaptsuoo of paltnf SjdQ aq,L •laa4E y19L isaM wo if duado id aq; olut suani ifal .iof io dmadodd agi wo if su im ifal .iof Molln lou op sluausl tndV duolo j of ssaoon .iof ya aqj ut papnlout suSZsap aq,L :S,d luawsuoa -san,T Rujuasa ida t puoquiuluno q puu AuoloD Aq alqu ton uj aq ol punoj uaaq suq inoAul siq,L •InoAul uoiloastalui jsalul aqj sutuldxa Ig asuodsag •A: mdo id SIX P .IoJ ant�uuta1lu ssaaau llnj u apinotd of palu$ilgo jou st AI!D alp ggnogl uana `ssaaau Iln3 aluaao jugs autos Suipnlout `uopastaiui slip it, santjuutajlu luuoilippu palunluna suq 94iD oqi `pagsilgnd suns SIg3 aqj aouiS •uoiloasaalui sigj .ioj sani�uutallu jg2ia pouil }no gaigtA SIgq agljo b•9 uoi�oaS aaS :173 asuodsag •sluaurl rndy duoloj aqj of ssaoon llnf aeuasa.[d ingl sacuinu ialln ugtsap ■ dolaaap of pla ffgotd fo diiD ail agv rnooua aAI •uopoasialur anuaiV xouX pun laa4s y,9L lsa,g aql dof sinodvl antlnuialln fun daptsuoo ro dpnis lou saop Sjga aqj :pj luaturuoi •Sg juouzutoD of asuodsag aaS (a •suuld pug xoj pauga t 2utaq st IMP ant 11.131Iu aqp si SRLL •xaldutoD IuauqtudV XuoloD aqj of ssaaau IIn3 sapinoid gaignn pagiluapi uaaq suq anuuuta1Iu zaIDouu `pagsilgnd soon SIg3 age aouiS •ssaaau ono jgSu/ui IgSu u of ssaaau llnj uzog aSuugo u su ssaaau xaldutoo sjuaugmdy Kuoloa oqj uo joafoad uogotu4su03ag WAS p9L aqj jo joudwi agp pogiluopi SIgd oq.L (q •SIg3jo 0•S uoiloaS Pun S xipuaddd SIgQ ui Xpn4S pudutl ogjutZ aaS •s.zaqumu ogjuxl punoaipuq aqj ui paluasotdat st puu sisAluuu ogpu.4 agp ui popnlaui suns sluou4ndv guoloo aqj uiorj Sui dop puu guin,iuu ogju.A aq,L (u :Ej asuodsag •o ffv4 pajvdaua2- joafoi j of anp papaau swnsnaw uopvkp N (o pun . sluaptsaj sll pun 4.iadodd ail uo loa.fo rd agi fo londwz aq,L (q sluauil.[ndV,fuoloj ail wo- #'2upindap pun Suzaz..un 3jffVJL (n :dpnls of pa1znf cfpnis olffn.o pagoniln pun Eiaa au :£j luaufwoo •pajou luounuoD :ZA asuodsag •suopoavalut anuaAVxouy pun laa4s y,9L MAI ail In lnugl olffnu ail uz papnlouz q ifvmae up sluawmvdV f'uojoD ail fi ansst stgi of aaptsuas ssal dllnpunisgns ain aAl pad uo u tn,L lgkld oN„ ail fo lnaowa r of pa ugfa td st laa-�1S y19Z isa� in � Si aims raluj tuo..Clzxa punogg;nos ail .cof aunt u ini lySt.i puooas n fo uotionwsuoo roil Sjg l nuzd ail fo 9 g uopoas uz uotsnlouoo s plalfgotd fo dtt,7 ail Ylim aa&v aY :Ed luaututo,7 Response F5: Response E1 explains the latest intersection layout. This layout has been found to be favorable by Colony and Fountainhead representatives. Comment F6: The designs included in the DEIS for the exit from Colony Apartments show that right turns to and from the property will not be protected by a traffic signal. The DEIS failed to consider the impact of the Project on the flow of traffic and the safety of turns to and from the Colony Apartments. Response F6: The analysis completed for the FEIS showed that the queue lengths on 760' Street would occasionally block the entrance to the Colony Apartments. - There is approximately 100 feet of storage distance between the Knox Avenue intersection and the access to the Colony Apartments on 76`x' Street. The AM peak hour maximum queue length for the westbound through movement with the 7,500 employee development is expected to be 150 feet. Therefore, the queue lengths are expected to periodically block the access to Colony Apartments. Without mitigation, however, because a low number of vehicles are expected to exit from Knox Avenue to 76h Street during the AM peak hour, the traffic signal at the 7e Street and Knox Avenue intersection will remain "green" for a significant amount of time for through traffic on 7e Street. This longer "green" time will allow the queues on 76th Street to dissipate and thus allow vehicles exiting from the Colony Apartments to enter onto westbound 76h Street. Response E1 explains the latest intersection layout being considered as a mitigation measure. This layout has been found to be favorable by Colony and Fountainhead representatives. It provides access to Colony via the intersection with Knox Avenue. G. Benshoof & Associates, Inc. Comment GI: Best Buy Project would cause a significant negative traffic impact by creating increased congestion on the mainline lanes for I -494 and I -35W. a) Table 5.15 in the FEIS shows during the AMpeak hour that I -494 between Xerxes Avenue and Penn Avenue would function within the LOS E volume range under the Year 2003 No -Build scenario. Table 5.15 mistakenly reports this as LOS F. b) Tables 5.15 and 5.16 show that I -35W between 66Th Street and 76'h Street during the "peak hour and that I -494 between Xerxes Avenue and Penn Avenue during the PMpeak hour would function at the threshold between the levels of service E and F under the Year 2003 No -Build scenario, but would drop completely into LOS F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. Response Gl: a) Benshoof & Associates correctly noted that Table 5.15 of the FEIS has an incorrect level of service reported for the Year 2003 AM peak hour No -Build condition for the location on I-494 between Xerxes Avenue and Penn Avenue. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -24 f 1 1 I 1 1 1 F1 1 t 1 �ql� 0 1 ,L _ The Table states that this location is expected to have a LOS F. The correct level of service for this location should be LOS E. Therefore, with the expected 7,500 employee development for Best Buy, the level of service between Xerxes and Penn decreases from a LOS E (the No -Build condition) to a LOS F. b) The Benshoof & Associates comments regarding congestion on the I -35W and I -494 mainlines, state that two other locations have hourly volumes of 2,300 vehicles per lane for the No -Build condition. The locations are: • I -35W between 7e Street and 66b Street during the AM peak hour, and • I -494 between Xerxes Avenue and Penn Avenue during the PM peak hour. The threshold for a LOS F on a freeway with these types of lane uses is 2,300 vehicles per lane per hour. Therefore, any volume greater than or equal to 2,300 vehicles per lane per hour is LOS F. Because these locations have volumes equal to 2,300 vehicles per lane per hour, the level of service at these locations is LOS F. Based on the traffic volumes, geometry and levels of service identified in the table, it is clear that the regional transportation system (I -494 and I -35W) is currently operating at or near capacity (LOS E and F) without the Project (No- build). The segment between Xerxes and Penn is already approaching a failing condition (LOS E), and the other two segments are failing (LOS F). The Project - generated traffic is only a small contributor to that condition on a regional basis. The mitigation for this level of service impact is programmed by MnDOT to occur within eight years after the Project is constructed. The MnDOT planned improvements include additional lanes on the mainline of I -494, collector /distributors roads, and improved interchanges. With the reconstruction of I -494 in approximately 2010, the level of service at all three locations described above are expected to improve to a LOS D for both No- Build and the 7,500 employee development. MnDOT is currently in the process of completing the final EIS for the planned I -494 improvement project. Given the current traffic volumes on I494, with many segments at or near capacity, MnDOT is encouraged to move this scheduled improvement up as much as possible. The Project's contribution to this planned improvement is to provide the Penn Avenue Bridge and interchange portion of MnDOT's project eight years ahead of schedule. The Project also results in the reconstruction of 76`h Street, between I -35W and Penn Avenue, which is an identified reliever for I-494. MnDOT has reviewed both the DEIS and FEIS for the Best Buy Project to examine the possible impacts of the Project on the regional transportation Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -25 system. MnDOT stated that Option B with 9,500 employees may be too large for the supporting roadway network and should not be pursued. MnDOT has expressed no specific traffic - related concerns regarding Option A with 7,500 employees, other than encouraging implementation of a TDM Plan. The Project is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's regional growth policy objective of increasing the density of development within developed areas. Increased development density encourages increased transit use. It is not the intent of their regional growth policy to limit redevelopment projects due to regional transportation deficiencies. Comment G2: Best Buy Project would cause a significant ne g ative traffic im p act by creating increased congestion and accidents on 1 -494 between Penn Avenue and 1 -35W due to greater weaving conflicts. N a) The second paragraph under Section 5.3.2.A of the FEIS indicates that the MnDOT weaving study addressed the weave conditions at Penn Avenue and I 35W (I -494) with a single point diamond interchange. This statement is false. , The referenced MnDOT study addressed other weaving circumstances. b) Page 5 -29 in the FEIS references the MnDOT Weaving Study and includes the following statement: "The study concluded the reconstructed Penn Avenue Bridge improved weaving conditions and operations on eastbound 1 -494 west of Penn Avenue. " This statement is untrue because the referenced study did not address in any matter the subjects of weaving conditions and traffic operations on eastbound 1 -494 west of Penn Avenue. c) Page 5 -31 in the FEIS includes the following statement, "The MnDOT Weaving Study also simulated the AM and PMpeak hour No -Build and Build conditions for the Penn Avenue Interchange area, which were simulated using SYNCHRO and TrafNetsim software. " This is a false statement because the referenced MnDOT Weaving Study did not address any such simulation analysis. d) The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) state that the recommended minimum spacing between entrance and exit ramps such as Penn Avenue and I -35W is 1,575 feet. The existing spacing of 1,280 feet is already 295 feet (19 percent) shorter than the recommended minimum. Contrary to the erroneous statements presented in Section 5.3.2.A of the FEIS, it is obvious that the shortening of the weaving distance to 1,050 feet under the build condition would exacerbate the already deficient condition. The FEIS includes a contradictory statement on page 17 -9 in response to comment D8 which referenced weave distance as a reason for rejecting the HOV lane on the eastbound ramp to 1 -494. Response G2: a -c) The first two comments made above all make reference to the MnDOT Weaving Study and that it did not specifically address the conditions at the I -494 and Penn Avenue Interchange. The FEIS misstated the reference to this study. The intended reference was that the MnDOT Weaving Study Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -26 1 F�j t 1 �I L results were representative of conditions that would occur at I -494 and Penn Avenue. The MnDOT Weaving Study entitled "Estimation of Capacity in Freeway Weaving Areas for Traffic Management and Operations" examined other weaving areas at similar interchanges. The Weaving Study did not specifically include the I-494 and Penn Avenue Interchange. However, the weaving analysis results in the study can be applied to other ramp entrance and exit merge /diverge areas, including the I-494 and Penn Avenue Interchange area for both the existing conditions and the proposed single - point diamond interchange. Additionally, a specific simulation model was run for the-Year 2022 for the Penn Avenue Interchange to test the general conclusions of the Weaving Study on this interchange. The findings of the simulation analysis were consistent with the expectations based on the Weaving Study. Section 5.3 (page 5 -29) of the FEIS is the section within the FEIS that misstates the findings from the MnDOT Weaving Study. The original discussion and accurate reference to this study was represented in the clarification letter submitted to MnDOT by the City on October 6, 2000. The attachment to this letter, as documented in Appendix H of the FEIS, accurately describes the study and how it can be applied to the Penn Avenue /I -494 Interchange. MnDOT reviewed this letter and attachment and agreed through their follow -up correspondence on October 17, 2000 that there were no concerns regarding the proposed weaving distances. Therefore, even though the study was misstated in the FEIS, the conclusions drawn in the FEIS based on the study results and reviewed by MnDOT are valid and relevant. d) Mr. Benshoof correctly states the AASHTO recommended minimum spacing between entrance and exit ramps is 1,575 feet. The current ramp spacing between the Penn Avenue entrance ramp and the I -35W exit ramp is 1,280 feet. Therefore, the current ramp spacing condition of 1,280 feet is less that the AASHTO recommended minimum spacing. However, Mr. Benshoof fails to mention that the MnDOT recommended minimum spacing between entrance and exit ramps is 1,000 feet (MnDOT Road Design Manual, Chapter 6), which is the standard used in Minnesota. Therefore, under both the existing interchange condition/No -Build alternative (1,280 foot spacing) and the proposed single -point diamond interchange/build alternative (1,050 spacing), the spacing between the entrance and exits ramps of Penn Avenue and I -35W is greater than the MnDOT recommended minimum spacing of 1,000 feet. In reference to Mr. Benshoof 's claim that contradicting statements were made in the FEIS regarding weaving distance, the following clarification is provided. Response to comment D8 of the FEIS (page 17 -9) stated that Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December ll, 2000 Page A -27 1 construction of an HOV bypass lane for the eastbound ramp was rejected due to inadequate weaving distance. This is an accurate statement as the addition of an HOV lane for the 2002 construction would result in a weave condition of less than 1,000 feet (the MnDOT minimum standard). Without the HOV lane, as proposed, the weave distance is 1,050 feet, which complies with the MnDOT standard. Therefore, the statements presented in , the FEIS are not contradictory. Based on the findings in the MnDOT weaving study, as described in the City letter to MnDOT (FEIS Appendix H, attachment A), a reduction in the weaving distance between entrance and exit ramps is not a significant factor for creating congestion on the freeway mainline. Traffic speed and ramp , geometry were more relevant issues. Based on the principle findings of the study, it would be expected that the design changes proposed for the Penn ' Avenue Interchange (increased ramp lengths) will allow for increased ramp speed, which will result in less congestion than the current condition even with the reduction in weaving distance. MnDOT reviewed the City's letter and its evaluation of the MnDOT Weaving Study and agreed through their follow -up correspondence on October 17, 2000, that there were no concerns regarding the proposed weaving distances. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -28 Comment G3: Best Buy Project would cause a significant negative traffic impact by creating substantial congestion on Penn Avenue and 761h street because the p.m. peak hour volumes projected to use entrance ramps from these roadways to I -494 and I -35W greatly exceed their capacity. Response G3: The purpose of this response is to clarify the effects of ramp ' metering, describe MnDOT's ramp metering practices, and respond to issues that were raised in the FEIS. In the comments to the FEIS, Benshoof & Associates determined average metering rates for the Penn Avenue entrance ramps to I -494 and the 76 Street entrance to northbound I -35W through field observations on a single day. Based on this average metering rate, capacities of the entrance ramps listed above were determined: MnDOT's standard practices and procedures, however use six different metering rates (R1 through R6), instead of a single average rate, at each entrance ramp to allow vehicles onto the freeway system in a manageable fashion. The R 1 rate is the fastest metering rate and the R6 rate is the slowest metering rate at a specific entrance ramp. The R1 rate is typically in operation when the traffic volumes on both the freeway main line and specific ramp are low. The R6 rate is typically in operation when there is extreme congestion on the freeway mainline. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -28 j LI Table A -6 shows typical approximate metering rates for several locations in the Twin Cities Metro area, and it also shows the approximate metering rates for the Penn Avenue entrance ramps to I494 and for the 76th Street entrance ramp to I -35W. As can be seen from the table, the metering rates are different for each ramp entrance location. MnDOT's practice is to calculate the metering rates such that they are able to accommodate the volume of traffic entering onto the freeway without causing significant congestion on the local streets. Table A -6: MnDOT Ramp Meter Timings Existing Volumes Approximate Metering Rates - Red Times Only Location Number of Vehicles (v h) (2) Rl RZ R3 ( R4 R5 ) R6 Penn Ave to I-494 EB (PM) 1099 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.6 2.7 4.6 Penn Ave to I-494 WB (PM) 304 5.9 7.1 8.8 11.2 14.9 21.7 76th Street to I -35W NB (PM) (4) 294 6.2 7.4 9.1 11.6 15.5 22.5 Broadway Ave to I -94 EB (PM) 1028 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.9 3.0 5.0 Hennpin Ave to I -94 EB (PM) 1184 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.4 2.3 4.1 I -94 EB to I -35W SB (AM) 1884 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 12th St to I -94 WB (PM) 1071 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.8 4.7 I -35W NB to 1 -94 WB (AM) 1514 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 10th St to I -35E NB (PM) 1004 0.4 0.8 1.3 2.0 3.1 5.2 TH 100 SB to 1 -394 WB C -D (PM) 1215 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.3 2.2 3.9 RI = Rate 1, R2 = Rate 2, etc. Best Buy Project - 7,500 Employee Development (Year 2003) Approximate Expected Metering Rates - Red Times Onl y (u !Location Number of Vehicles (vph) PM Peak RI R2 ( R3 R4 RS R6 Penn Ave to I-494 EB 1600 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.2 2.5 Penn Ave to I494 WB 939 0.6 0.9 1.5 2.3 3.5 5.7 76th St to 1 -35W NB 591 2.1 2.7 3.5 4.8 6.7 10.2 DR] = Rate 1, R2 = Rate 2, etc. (1) Add 2.0 seconds for Yellow and Green phases. (2) Number of vehicles was taken from the MnDOT "All Detector Report," April 13, 2000. (3) Timings were calculated based on the MnDOT Traffic Management Center's current timing practices as of Nov 17, 2000. (4) Number of vehicles was taken from the MnDOT "All Detector Report," April 14, 1999 because ramp was under construction in Year 2000. The metering rate used at any specific time and at a particular location is determined by mathematical equation that uses real -time volume information from the freeway mainline and all entrance and exit ramps. This volume information is updated every 30 seconds, which in turn updates the metering rates Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -29 at each specific entrance ramp. Because there are six different metering rates at each ramp entrance and the metering rate in operation may change every 30 seconds, an average metering rate cannot be used to adequately determine the capacity of the entrance ramp. The metering rates determined at a particular ramp are calculated based on the volume of vehicles entering onto the freeway during the peak hour (AM and PM). Because of this, these metering rates are different for each entrance ramp, unless the volumes on the ramps are the same. For example, the metering rates at the Penn Avenue entrance ramp to I-494 eastbound would be different than the metering rates at the France Avenue entrance ramp to I-494 eastbound because the volumes on the ramps are different. Because the metering rates are calculated based on the peak hour volume of vehicles using the entrance ramp, large increases or decreases in the volume of vehicles using the ramp would require the metering rates to be updated periodically. MnDOT updates /adjusts the metering rates for the entire system every six months. Where large scale development occurs in an area that may affect an existing ramp meter by creating substantial traffic volume increases, MnDOT provides immediate reevaluation of that ramp meter and adjusts the metering rates, as appropriate. Metering rates would also be reevaluated after the reconstruction of an interchange, as would be the case with the Penn Avenue / I -494 Interchange reconstruction. Therefore, after completion of the Project Roadway Improvements on Penn Avenue and 760' Street and completion of the Best Buy Project, the ramp metering on the Penn Avenue entrance ramps to I -494 and the 76h Street entrance ramps to northbound I -35W would be reevaluated. As stated in Section 12.5 of the FEIS, MnDOT's fastest metering rate is 2.1 seconds per vehicle. If this were the only rate used during the entire hour, a maximum of 1,714 vehicles would be able to travel through the meter and onto the freeway system. Because MnDOT uses six different metering rates, the lowest rate could be at a minimum of 2.1 seconds per vehicle. The other five metering rates could be equal to or greater than the 2.1 seconds per vehicle minimum based on the volume of vehicles entering onto the freeway. As stated in Section 12.5 of the FEIS, for all development scenarios and time periods included in the analysis, the expected volumes entering onto the regional roadway system (I -494 and I -35W) are less than the maximum threshold of 1,714 vehicles. This reference was made not to imply that a 2.1 second per vehicle metering rate would be used at these entrance ramp locations but to show that the ramp meters have the capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes from the Project. If MnDOT adjusts the ramp meter rates based on the new traffic volumes from the Best Buy development and there are complaints of the ramp meters creating queues that back up onto local streets, MnDOT's practice is to perform a field review of the location, verify the problem, and take the appropriate steps to Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -30 �J 1 f� i 1 J mitigate the problem. If significant queuing lengths that impact the local street are noticed using the Closed- Captioned Television (CCTV) cameras, MnDOT also has the capability to immediately manually override any ramp meter that is connected to the system. Also, construction of the I -494 / I -35W Interchange area is expected to begin in approximately Year 2011. When this reconstruction is complete, vehicles will not be able to enter I -494 from Penn Avenue and then travel south onto I -35W. Because of this, the volume of vehicles on this entrance ramp to eastbound I494 from Penn Avenue is expected to decrease. With this decrease in traffic volumes, MnDOT would be expected to reevaluate the meter rates at this location again and adjust them accordingly. Comment G4: Best Buy Project would cause a significant through traffic use and associated negative impacts on local residential streets because motorists would seek alternative routes to avoid congestion on the I -494 and 1 -35W entrance ramps Response G4: See Response G3. Based on MnDOT's practice of adjusting the metering rates to accommodate the anticipated volume of traffic entering onto the freeway, and added ramp capacity with the interchange reconstruction, motorists would not be expected to experience unusual congestion on the entrance ramps and would therefore not need to seek alternative routes on the local streets to avoid this congestion. Additionally, there are a number of arterials that are designated as relievers for I -494 and I -35W traffic. Some of these routes are located within residential areas. The north/south arterials closest to the Project include: York Avenue, Penn Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, and Nicollet Avenue. These roadways are generally four -lane undivided roadways with few protected turn lanes, except for York which does have protected turn lanes. Table A -7 below shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and the design capacities of these roadways. In the DEIS, 15% of the employees entering/exiting the Best Buy Campus are expected to use I -35W north of 76th Street to travel to /from the Site. As a worst case example, if this percentage were redistributed evenly to the four arterial roadways listed above, each roadway would experience an approximate 4% increase in daily traffic volumes from the Project. The table also shows the ADT volumes on these roadways with the 4% addition of the Best Buy traffic. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -31 Table A -7: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes and Design Capacities Arterial 1998 ADT d)' Capacity of Roadway Example Worst-case ADT After Best Buy Campus ( d )Z York Avenue 19,000 34,000 20,160 Penn Avenue 17,000 23,000 18,305 Lyndale Avenue 13,500 23,000 14,080 Nicollet Avenue 11,900 23,000 12,480 1 Volumes taken from the MnDOT Traffic Flow Maps (vehicles per day) 2 Four percent was added in addition to the percentages previously assigned to Penn, York, Lyndale, and Nicollet Assuming the Project traffic was added to these arterials as shown above it is far less than the available capacity of the roadways and is not expected to significantly impact them. Traffic on 76th Street just west of Lyndale Avenue has dropped from 12,000 ADT to 5,700 ADT since 77th Street was built as a minor arterial. Only a limited amount of traffic uses 76th Street to gain access to or from Lyndale or Portland Avenue given the improvements made on 77th Street. This is a prime example of how minor arterials with adequate capacity minimize the use of residential streets. Similar benefits are expected to occur with the road improvements on Penn Avenue and 76th Street. Comment G5: MnDOT has not altered its September 27 statement that the scenario with 9,500 employees would cause five problems regarding access off Penn Avenue. Response G5: Comment noted. The City's preferred alternative is the 7,500 employee option as described in the Findings Section of this document (Section 4.25). Comment G6: In response to a MnDOT comment that a single point at Penn Avenue will be stressed to its limits and will affect the operation of I -494 and 1-35 W, page 17 -3 in the FEIS presents the following comment: "Based on a MnDOT study of other weaving areas, and simulation of the existing and proposed conditions, the proposed Penn Avenue improvements are expected to improve operations on I -494 during peak hour conditions. " As noted in points GI (a) and GI (b) above, the preceding statement is incorrect and seriously misleading. Response G6: See Responses G 1 and G2. Based on the results of the MnDOT Weaving Study (which did not specifically study the Penn Avenue Interchange), and a simulation study of Year 2022 conditions specifically conducted for the Penn Avenue Interchange Modification Request, the proposed Penn Avenue improvements are expected to improve operations on I-494 during peak hour conditions. Based on these studies, this is not a false or misleading statement. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -32 I u n L� ££-v a8vd 000Z `l ! .iagwaoaQ E199 uo saalla7 sluawW03 o2 sasuodsad •a.rvMzfoS 4lovdvj dbmi1.SiH agl .io ogaudE ut paluasaid saj8ojopoglaw pappuvjs agj g8noayj paonpoad sjjnsw sv pjjvn sv jou aiv jvgl sjjnsai aoi,uas fo janaj spjazd Sjyj agj uz pasn uozzvjnwis ojffvdLunS agj jvgj juaiun8.iv agj of jt iaw .iagj mf sapjAwd uojjvnits sjg,L -sasvaiouj uopoasaaluz agj 8umajua autnjon jvjoj agj uagM awoolno jnaj8ojjt uv sr Sjyg agj ui pajuasa id `anua tV ajvpud'7 pun laa4E y ,ZZ fo uoymsaalur agj jv aop uas fo janaj ut asmouj aq (q •uojloasaaluj sjgj zv alwas fo janaj puv �fvjap agj palvRilsappun svg o jffvaLurzs `sat8ojopogjaur uojzvjnojvo aozcuas fo janaj jvus.rou of uost.rvdwoo uj aotn.ias fo janaj jv ajv.tado pjnoM uorloasralur agj jvgl ajvazpuz szjnso.i offfv.i,LKts ag,L (v :SIgj aglfo IH ut paluasa.rd luawwoo .ino of asuodsa i agl 8uzp rv8as :69 juauiwoa •samulsutno tto it,uuou .tapun afut,go.talui t6t,-I / anuand uuad agl It, m000 of paloodxa IOU st gutnanb lut,otgtugts `osea tout sautnion ogJeal uagnn .zo palaidutoo act, sluautanojdutt Alampt,ot lueogtugts to )je xttAoajj oql oluo fuualuo sautnion 3gju.4 poludtotlue aql alupoutut000e of salm Suuajotu aql lsnfpe of si aotlotud s, o(IuW asnt,oaq `utv9V *j 7D pue £J asuodso -d oaS :g f) asuodsag •sdutvs agj asn of pajoaloid sawnjon agj uvgi ssaj am sdutvi aoumma agj fo saylovdvo agj asnvoaq a8uvgo talul j,6t,I 1anuand uuad agj jv .sn000 jjtna uoilsa8uoo puv 8uinanb olffv.rl :s1 juawwoo Slyd of asuodsaa agj 8utpiv8ay :89 juaulmoq 'SIg stgl3o loafgns aql IOU st sloafotd uotlotulsuoo poloauuooun put, polt,iantn joj sloedutt uotlon 4suoo Ajwodutal toj uotlegtIiW ' IOOZ faunuu f ut pogstignd aq of st gotgM ,LOC[uW Aq patedatd Sutaq luatualujS lot,duq it,luatuuortnug t6b-I Ieuid aq; ut polepdn aq pinom put, luoumms lot,dutl ieluauzuo -tnuq b6t�-I )FJG V661 aql ut passa zppt, uaaq ant,q pinogs loa fo td uotlotulsuoo b6{, -I aql jo slot,durt aU 'Sig stgl .to loafotd stgljo ltt,d lou st {,6b-I jo uop"suomi agZ •sswt otd pue sum l3oi uotlon.gsuoo aql uo Sutpuodap lualltuualut put, kmodutal aq pine uotlsaguoo stgl `.MAQmoH •uotlsaguoo pasuamut aq of punoq si atagl loafotd uotlongsuooat AutAoojj .tofeut Cut, gltAA •spouad 3gju.4 ait,ad Sutmp Aiietoadsa `t,6 -i uo pasoduxt slujv4suo3 uotlotulsuoo it,tluelsgns aq IOU pinonn magi legi sear Aus ptp It jugtA - uotlsaguoo poseamut oq IOU pinonn a.tagl Imp aluls IOU ptp Zq joj asuodsat SIgd oU :L9 asuodsag wfigs auvj (o siapjnogs fo ssoj (q g1ptM auvj uj uojjonpaa (v :apnjou: jym jvgl vojovf of anp uojlonalsuoo 8uunp paonpai aq jjtM dlaajjj t,6p I uo djjovdvo olffvtj agj asnvoaq (paloruisuoow st d'vMaa4agj uagm j,6j,I uo uojjsa8uoo pasva.rouj 8utp.•rv8a.r) joa uoouj st Sjgj agl uz Z g juawwoD of asuodsad :,49 luaunuoo 1 r 1 1 •_J Response G9: a) In an effort to help clarify for Mr. Benshoof the difference between the two traffic software models ( SYNCHRO and SimTraffic), the following is a response from John Albeck, the software designer for both the SYNCHRO and SimTraffic programs: SYNCHRO " Synchro and SimTraffic ARE different models and will give different results. Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program [examines the intersections and network as a whole and calculates the impacts to the system based on empirical equations] that replicates the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length. These models do not account for "bottleneck" situations where upstream traffic deficiencies reduce the amount of traffic reaching downstream intersections. This would be a situation where Synchro may show a delay that is worse than SimTraffic since all of the volume is not reaching the intersection in SimTraffic." SimTraffic "When it comes to SimTraffic, this is a microscopic simulation model [examines the impacts to each individual vehicle within the model]. SimTraffic has the capability to simulate a wide variety of traffic controls, including a network with traffic signals operating on different cycle lengths or operating under fully- actuated conditions. Most other traffic analysis software packages do not allow for a direct evaluation of traffic conditions operating under varying cycle lengths and traffic control [as exist in the study area]. Each vehicle in the traffic system is individually tracked through the model and comprehensive operational measures of effectiveness are collected on every vehicle during each 0.1- second of the simulation. Driver behavior characteristics ranging from passive to aggressive are assigned to each vehicle by the model, effecting the vehicle's free -flow speed, queue discharge headways; and other behavioral attributes. The variation of each vehicle's behavior is simulated in a manner reflecting real -world operations. Since SimTraffic is a microscopic model, the full impact of queuing and blocking would be measured by the model. This is a situation where SimTraffic could show more delay when compared to Synchro." For the Best Buy Campus analysis both traffic software models were used. The SYNCHRO software was used as a database manager where the lane geometrics, volume information, and signal timings were stored for each development scenario. These inputs were then transferred to the SimTraffic model, which was used to fine -tune the signal timings and geometrics and then Responses to Comments Letters on FUS December II, 2000 Page A -34 1 I � 1 1 1 1 calculate the level of service and queue length impacts to the surrounding roadway network. The SimTraffic model was used to determine the impacts of traffic on the surrounding roadway network because this model examined the impacts of traffic in the system on a vehicle by vehicle basis. As stated above in John Albeck's response, some intersections may have worse level of service results and some intersections may have better level of service results using the SimTraffic model compared the SYNCHRO model. Also, contrary to Mr. Benshoof's statement that the results from SimTraffic are not compatible with HCS or SYNCRO results, the level of service and queue length results produced from SimTraffic are compatible with each of these programs and are accepted in the traffic engineering field as reliable and accurate. The analysis that was performed by Benshoof & Associates at the 76h Street and I -35W Northbound Entrance Ramp and at the 77l' Street and Lyndale Avenue intersections using the SYNCHRO software included only those intersections. Because these intersections are part of a larger interconnected signal system, the operations at one intersection influence the operations at an adjacent intersection. If the signal system is optimized, vehicles traveling on the coordinated roadway generally arrive at the intersection when the light is green. Because of this, these vehicles incur little delay thus improving the intersection level of service. If the signal is looked at individually and not in a coordinated system, vehicles travelling on the main roadway arrive at the signal at random times. This may add extra delay to each vehicle because they may arrive at the intersection when the signal is red thus decreasing the level of service of the intersection. A comparison of the AM and PM peak hour time periods with the 7,500 employee option for the Year 2003 was conducted to examine the differences in the intersection level of service results produced by SYNCHRO and SimTraffic. The comparison showed that for a total of 36 intersections (18 for the AM peak hour and 18 for the PM peak hour) the following occurred: • Nine intersections had worse intersection levels of service using SimTraffic vs. SYNCHRO; • Five intersections had better intersection levels of service using SimTraffic vs. SYNCHRO; and • Twenty -two intersections reported the same levels of service using SimTraffic vs. SYNCHRO. As can be seen from this information, SimTraffic showed that there was a difference of four intersections that had worse level of service conditions than intersections that had better level of service conditions. For the majority of the intersections, SimTraffic and SYNCHRO produced the same level of service results. As stated above, SimTraffic was used to determine the impacts the surrounding roadway network because this model examined the impacts of Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -35 traffic in the system on a vehicle by vehicle basis and has the greater capability to model "real- world" conditions. b) The FEIS has a statement in it that reads "The improvement occurred because the volume collected by Benshoof was 100 vehicles less than the predicted average used in the DEIS" for the 77h Street / Lyndale Avenue intersection. The statement should read, "The improvement occurred because the volume collected by Benshoof was 100 vehicles less for the northbound to westbound movement than the predicted average used in the DEIS." The total volume of vehicles entering the intersection for all movements during the PM peak hour under the Year 2003 scenario with 7,500 employees would be 124 vehicles higher using the Benshoof data than as presented in the DEIS. Mr. Benshoof is making the reference that an increase in volumes automatically means a decrease in the level of service of the intersection. This statement is untrue. Because there are fewer vehicles making the northbound to westbound movement using Benshoof 's data, the traffic signal can be optimized to remove allotted "green" time for this left turn movement and to reallocate that "green" time to the eastbound and westbound through movements. By optimizing the signal timing and giving more "green" time to the higher volume movements, the level of service for the intersection is expected to improve from LOS D to a LOS C using the volumes taken from the Benshoof & Associates analysis. Comment G10: We strongly disagree with the response to FEIS Comment H7 and would state that motorists would have a major incentive to use local streets to avoid the substantial congestion that would occur on Penn Avenue and 7e Street because the capacity of the entrance ramps to I -494 and I -35W would be considerably below the projected volumes. Response G10: See Response to Comments G3 and G4. Comment G11: Aside f -om the no -build option, the FEIS has not addressed any development alternative that would not cause the above referenced negative traffic impacts. Response G11: All alternatives identified in the Scoping Decision document were analyzed. The MEQB Rules do not require inclusion of an alternative which has no traffic impacts. Rather the Rules require the development of mitigation measures in response to identified impacts. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -36 1 u 1 I 1 ' H. Larry Wozniczka ' Comment HI: Preparation of the EIS by unbiased experts was promised. The firm of BRW, who designed the roadway system, also prepared the EIS technical response. Similarly, the City Department assigned as the responsible governmental unit raises questions. Response Hl: The City enlisted the assistance of several consultants to prepare ' plans for the various Project Roadway Improvements and the EIS. SEH is preparing the road plans for the 76th Street Reconstruction Project, WSB engineering provided the utility engineering for the Penn Avenue Bridge project and BRW provided the design plans for the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. BRW was also involved in preparing the traffic impact study and portions of the EIS. The City used consultants based on their expertise and familiarity with the Project rarea and issues. The City used independent experts to ensure that the EIS analysis would be objective. Community Development and Public Works staff worked on the EIS with assistance from SEH, who reviewed the transportation portion of the ' EIS, and WSB, who reviewed sections relating to utilities. Response H3: The commentor does not provide adequate information on what cost questions remain or what additional risk analysis should be completed. These comments are noted. Revenues generated by the Project are to be Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -37 BRW is a recognized expert in the preparation of environmental review documents as well as bridge design. The technical issues raised in the EIS were also issues affecting the bridge design. Therefore having BRW work on both does not imply a bias. BRW is a reputable engineering firm that has prepared ' dozens of environmental impact statements for responsible governmental units and developers. BRW has an excellent reputation with MEQB for their ' presentation of the facts and attention to proper procedure. Comment H2: Failure to use the I -494 frontage road to carry some of the traffic places ' a greater load on 76th Street to the West of Penn Avenue. If this leads to widening of 76" Street west of Penn, more houses will be lost. ' Response H2: It is assumed that the commentor is referring to the potential closing of the frontage road to the west of Penn Avenue. The frontage road west of Penn Avenue will not be closed as part of this Project. Closure of this section ' of frontage road is being contemplated as part of the I -494 improvements. Impacts of closing this portion of the frontage road should be addressed in the MnDOT FEIS being prepared for the I -494 roadway improvements. Comment H3: Cost questions related to the project remain. Risk analysis was only lightly treated. There is no indication that the City's General Fund will benef t from additional revenues for the 25 year term of the Tax Increment Finance district. Response H3: The commentor does not provide adequate information on what cost questions remain or what additional risk analysis should be completed. These comments are noted. Revenues generated by the Project are to be Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -37 dedicated to the regional fiscal disparities fund, Richfield's housing fund and for HRA administrative costs. To the extent that these revenues may decrease financial reliance on the City's general fund, this would represent general fund cost savings during the life of the TIF district. I. Peggy Handt Comment H: A traffic analysis still has not been done on the north /south arterial streets. What will be the impacts be due to increased traffic on these north /south arterials, as well as on 76`h Street between Portland and 1-35 W. Response I1: See response to comment G4. Comment I2: The FEIS still does not accurately address the effects of additional buses on the arterial streets and at the intersections studied on air quality and noise quality. Response I2: The current bus routes are located along Penn Avenue and 761' Street. Any increase in bus traffic to service the Project would occur along these same streets. Based on the 225 people forecast to use bus transit in the Revised Draft TDM Plan, a maximum of 12 additional buses would be needed during the two -hour peak periods or roughly 6 buses in the peak how. This is not a significant increase in the number of buses and has been accounted for in the traffic analysis completed to date. As a result, the analysis of noise and air impacts, which uses the traffic analysis, also accounted for the increase in buses. The commentor's expectation that the number of buses will increase drastically is unreasonable. Additionally, from an air quality and noise standpoint, for every bus that would be added, approximately 20 cars would be removed from the roadway. Fewer vehicles on the roadway would result in less air and noise impacts. Comment 13: Analysis at all intersections still do not include the increase in buses. Response I3: As was stated in the DEIS and FEIS, the impact of increased bus traffic resulting from the Proposed TDM Plan has been analyzed as part of the traffic impact study. See response to comment I2. Comment I4: Before the FEIS is approved, further studies need to be done to mitigate ways to physically discourage employees from straying off the main arterial streets. Response I4: Section 5.4 of the FEIS addressed the most reasonable mitigation to minimizing traffic impacts on residential streets. See also Response G4 of this document. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -38 1 6f-V aSnd OOOZ II .ragwaaaa 9I99 uo s.[al ;a7 sluau w0J of sasuodsay •saadoldwa OOS`6 -10 OOS`L snit �fng isag fr saino r snq aqj o, pappn aq o, aang d'ntu sasnq fo .raqurnu algnaSnunruun un djgnataouoo ingi ionf alt, ainptlnaut iou saop dQNjay alts wodf sc ti4, fo .oqurnu arts ut uotianpa i n anatgon o, sadog dng,sag agog gpof Sit „as alga, art„ „uasa rd of : gl ;uauruioj •t,[) asuodsag aaS :LI asuodsag •own 1, ,fnaaaa jf fo saanatla i pa,ndiot,un pail! wpn sn sa,no r snq pun s,aa4s Mlda,.rn S M agl uo sa rnsnam not vAujiu fun ssa rppn,ou saop P-.q uot;oaS :LI ;uawtuoa 'pajtq are A01D su 31ts aq) 015UTAoW 000`Z of 000`I luum I pt, aqj glt^n `ZOOZ aaquzanoN ut 01ts agD 01 anoui saa�Coldum OOS`9 of OOS`S anuq lltm Xng isag •«a�u�« piupuuls u su palaqul aq jouuuo azojomgl put, pazAluuu ouregawil oql Suunp Allunba .m000 jou Ilion 11 osnuoaq «ajuz glmoag lunpu„ uu su paugap aq louuuo pofoid oqj ucog Sutllnsai q�moa lumou aqs 'ZOOZ ut zn000 of paumssu suns gvAoj2 tuntui ut ztagp asnuooq Ang jsag ioj alai q:nnos oiaz u paumssu sisAlmm ogjuq acp `£00Z iagu `aroJaragL 'ZOOZ •iaqutanoN ut $utlrels soof,olduia OOS`L ilu aq pinom golgm `osuo -Isiom oqj paumssu Xpms ogjuq aqj 'ut anoui soaSolduta agl ja}lu ltjun pouiuuajap aq jouuuo ,,ajui gvAo S lumou„ aqs •s -oqumu otUu.4 luiol aqj puu saaqumu ogjux4 punoa3louq agp uaz)x4aq oouaaajjtp aqi st ioafoid aqj of anp glnnorff ogju.4 «lur4ou,, oql `oiojaaagi •suotldo oaXoldum OO9`6 Ptm OOS`L aqj gioq aoj pasn soon ssaooad s. U 'sAtmpuoi aqu uo ogiuq jo junouzu lujoi agl ants of ogjuq punoa3louq sup of pappu uogi woo }oofo -d oqj Xq palmouag sdrx� aq L 'PnAUOJ oil Iou pip 1oafo.�d aqj -SUI i1Ssu ZZOZ Put, £OOZ szuak aqj joj saumlon ogjuil punoj2)louq aqg outuualap of Xllunuuu popunoduzoo uagp suns aiuj qVnor2 slu 'OOOZ PuR 6661 snak ut paloolloo 0.13en JugD saumlon 3gJux4 2uiIstx0 oqj ol patlddu soon ajui s. U '(SIgQ aq;io Z'Z uoi�oaS `g xtpuoddV) Apn4S 13uduq ocgju.zZ oql puu (Z -g aged `l • l'S uot1oaS) SIg(l oql ut pautuldxo suns o!JJuq punoi2)louq joj oltu glnnoj2 juamad S'0 agg ioj uot}dLmsop oqL :91 asuodsag isaa,foldwa OOS`6 .io OOS`L aq; ut ppn nod uagm aivi g,naod Inn ;on aq; aq lllm;vgM `sanut,uoo .Ina f.iad ;uao.,rad S•0, fo a ;n r g,nao -d aSn rain uv j :91;uaww03 •l,D asuodsag aaS :SI asuodsag soot r,sapad fo dlafns ag, pun s,aa4s IDyaliv asag, uo otgnt, pasma roui ag,, fo lln fo s,aa, ffa asianpn algtssod ag, autuua,ap o, 77V LV VNoa Nyag, gA NH S.Vjaa S Old `olgn-o dvmaaaf fo vanarla r aq o, pa,oadxa acn at ro'l pun uuad alvpud7 ialloojN `puvIMo r ingi Sjgj agi ut pains st it g.Snog, uaad :Sl;uawwoa I 1 1 r- `J 1 1 Response I8: See Response I2. Comment 19: 1 want to know where you are going to route all of the traffic during the widening of 7e Street and the construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Response I9: See Response D9. Comment 110: How was the figure of 2% arrived at for buses, commercial vehicles or heavy trucks? Where is that set forth in the EIS? How do you know 2% is accurate? Response I10: The data used to analyze the air quality and noise impacts included the forecast increase in buses as a result of the TDM plan. As previously explained, the traffic analysis assumed that two percent of the traffic in any location is comprised of heavy trucks or buses. The value of two percent is a standard number taken from the Highway Capacity Manual, 1997 (Table 9 -3) that is used for operational and planning analyses.. For example, using existing traffic volumes at the east approach to the Penn Avenue and 76th Street intersection, the PM peak hour volume of traffic approaching the intersection is 945 vehicles, of which 2 percent would equal 19. Therefore is was estimated in the analysis that approximately 19 buses or heavy trucks would move through this intersection during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. With the 7,500 employee development option at the east approach to the Penn Avenue and 76th Street intersection, the expected PM peak hour volume of traffic approaching the intersection is 1,337 vehicles of which 27 would be buses or trucks, or an expected increase of 8 buses or trucks. According to the Proposed TDM Plan, a conservative estimate of 6 buses could be added during the peak hour with the addition of the Best Buy Campus. The total number of buses added will depend on the transit provider and the demand for ridership. J. Julie Erlandson Comment JI: The area of most concern is the TDMP. With only 13% of the employees considering alternative forms of transportation, and Best Buy not having a past, solid success rate of what employees have been willing to do, in reference to alternative modes of transportation, the outlook seems too uncertain to depend upon. Response J1: As described in the Draft and Final EIS, the traffic study shows that Best Buy Campus traffic for the 7,500 employee option can be accommodated on the improved road network without a TDM Plan. The analysis was completed assuming the worst -case scenario of no car pools, van pools or transit would occur and found that without these measures the traffic still operates at acceptable levels of service. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -40 I I 1 1 1 Best Buy's employee survey identified approximately 23% willing to try car pooling, 16 % willing to try the bus and 25% willing to try a van pool. K. Minnesota Department of Transportation Comment Kl: MnDOT has concerns about temporary drainage during construction and requests that the City make efforts to provide for adequate drainage during construction. Response Kl: A final Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and a final Storm Water Management Plan will be prepared and submitted to the City for approval as required by a condition in the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. As described in the FEIS, drainage from the Site as well as off -Site areas will be accommodated on -Site during and after construction. Comment K2: MnDOT encourages the City to work with the Developer in implementing a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan to help minimize increases in traffic that result from this development. ' Response K2: The Proposed TDM Plan is included in Appendix E. A final TDM Plan, required by a condition in the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, will be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director of the City of Richfield. IL. Postcard Comments In addition to the comment letters received, 203 postcards were received stating opposition to the project. Copies of these postcards are included in Appendix C. These postcards were sent and collected by the Walser Automotive Group and submitted to the City during the FEIS public comment period. One of the postcards was received from an individual that also provided a comment letter (Peggy Handt), which identified the same concerns and were responded to under the previous section "I ". Comment Ll: Of the remaining 202 postcards received, the majority (163) stated their e general opposition to the Project based on traffic congestion. Some of these also alluded to other impacts such as air and noise pollution associated with traffic, traffic within the residential areas, and the taking of homes and businesses in the project area. However, none of these specifically commented on the adequacy of the EIS in regards to these issues, rather just the commentors' opinions of the potential impacts. IResponse Ll: Comments noted. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -41 1 Comment L2: Twenty other postcards simply stated their opposition to the Project without any specific issues identified. Response L2: Comments noted. Comment L3: Approximately 18 commentors also stated opposition to the Project based on one or more of the following topics: the use of eminent domain, the use of tax increment financing, or suggested use of an alternative site location within Richfield east of I -35W. Response L3: Comments noted. The issue of alternative site locations was addressed in the Scoping EAW, the Scoping Decision, the DEIS and the FEIS. The EIS process completed to date has adequately addressed alternative sites as outlined in the Scoping Decision. Comment L4: Only one of the 203 postcards stated that the EIS inadequately addressed the traffic impacts that will result from the Project, further stating that there is no way to design for a development of this size in this location. The commentor also claimed that the traffic capacity of the area will be exceeded within five years without any additional development in the area. However, the commentor did not provide any specific information to substantiate these projections. Response L4: Comments noted. As described in the DEIS and FEIS, the Traffic Impact Study completed for the Project indicates that the smaller of the Project options analyzed (7,500 employees) does not cause substantial changes in traffic operations, requiring only one minor mitigation measure. Therefore, the smaller sized Project does fit within this location according to the best available information and agency review. The traffic capacity without this Project or its related Project Roadway Improvements is at or near capacity at a number of intersections, as is evident today. However, the Project and Project Roadway Improvements will increase the capacity of the worst intersections (Penn/I -494 and Penn/76 h), resulting in traffic improvements instead of traffic deficiencies. Responses to Comments Letters on FEIS December 11, 2000 Page A -42 "affir IT OWWWO) I ISM'd Isila WI ril JuOlutiltuloal) 1 `,' III Ha I ,a Mal IN, I" Hil "Jav 1 Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future November 13, 2000 Julie Urban Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Best Buy Campus —Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Metropolitan Council District 5 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 18260 -5 LDear Ms. Urban: ' Metropolitan Council staff has conducted a review of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The Best Buy Campus is proposed to be located north of I -494, west of I -35W, and south of 76a' Street between Penn and Knox Avenues in Richfield. The proposed project area is 42.85 acres. It will include the demolition of single - family homes, duplexes, apartment buildings, and commercial structures to accommodate the construction of four to five office buildings. Expected development is planned at 1.5 million square feet to create offices for up to 7,500 employees, with a maximum development of 1,900,000 square feet to create offices for up to 9,000 employees. The alternative with the expected square footage will include parking spaces for up to 7,500 cars. The maximum square footage alternative will include parking spaces for up to 9,500 cars. Demolition and construction of the Best Buy Campus would begin in April 2001 with the initial move -in expected in November 2002. The Council staff review has concluded that the FEIS is complete in regards to regional policies, plans, and concerns. Council Staff Offer The Following Comments: Housing (Guy Peterson, 651 - 602 -1418) The final EIS for the Best Buy Campus satisfactorily addresses the impact of the proposal on housing in the area affected. When Richfield submitted its updated comprehensive plan (1997 - 2007), it acknowledged household and housing unit growth through 2010 of about 1,000 households greater than the Council had forecast for 2010. All of the nearly 1,000 housing units could be developed as market -rate units, and if only 10 percent are rental units, the city would still have total housing numbers for all rental housing, and for affordable rental and ownership housing, that would be within the sector benchmarks and at their affordable and life -cycle goals. ,r 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. Minnesota 55101 -1626 (651) 602 -1000 Fax 602 -1550 7DD /= 291 -0904 An Equal Opporft-Uy EnwhPj r Metro Info Line 602 -1888 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 , Page 2 The proposed Best Buy campus development involves the apparent removal of 169 housing �+ units - -54 single - family homes, 26 units in duplexes, and 89 apartment units. Assuming that all of the units to be removed are affordable, and new recital housing units are built in Richfield over the next decade, the loss of these 169 units will not impact the city's ability to meet its LCA and comprehensive plan housing goals. However, if Richfield is to grow as forecast through 2010, and adds only ownership housing units, it would need to add nearly 150 affordable ownership units (townhouses or condos) over the next 10 years in order to achieve its ambitious affordable ownership goal. Land Use (Greg Pates, 651 - 602 -1410) The proposed office development would be consistent with the existing Richfield Comprehensive Plan's Regional Commercial/Office classification for the majority of the site. In May 2000, the city submitted to the Council a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for an 11 -acre area that is a part of the proposed Best Buy campus site addressed in the dEIS. The Council acted ' on the comprehensive plan amendment on September 27, 2000, authorizing the city to put the amendment into effect. Once in effect by the city, the comprehensive plan amendment will change the classification of these 11 acres from High Density Single Family Residential and Neighborhood Commercial to Regional Commercial/Office land use. Parks and Open Space (Michael McDonough, 651 -602 -1054) �( This proposed development is not located adjacent to a unit of the Regional Parks and Open Space system. This volume of employees in this area may have some impact through added use for several regional parks facilities including Hyland/Bush/Anderson Lakes Regional Park (located about 2 miles to the southwest), and Mmnehaha Parkway trails (located about 2 miles to the north). It may also add use to the Wood Lake Nature area located about a mile to the northeast. An existing railroad track corridor located less than one mile to the east is proposed to be added to the regional trail system in the future. If it becomes a regional trail, good access between it and the proposed development may promote using this regional trail for commuting. Any improvements at this site for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit options will enhance the parks and open space system through lower environmental impacts and improved connections to park and open space amenities. Council Staff Offer The Following Recommendations: I Housing (Guy Peterson, 651 - 602 -1418) Assuming that all of the units to be removed are affordable, and new rental housing units are built in Richfield over the next decade, the loss of these 169 units will not impact the city's ability to meet its LCA and comprehensive plan housing goals. However, if Richfield is to grow I� 1 1 t 1 11 1 I A Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 3 as forecast through 2010, and adds only ownership housing units, it would need to add nearly 150 affordable ownership units (townhouses or condos) over the next 10 years in order to achieve its affordable ownership goals. Losing this number of rental units and affordable rental units does not by itself affect the ability of Richfield to achieve, i.e., maintain, its rental housing goals negotiated in 1995 because the city's share of such units significantly exceeds the sector benchmark for cities in the south of Minneapolis planning sector. As the FEIS indicates, Richfield should make every effort to assist renter households displaced as the result of the land use change since, unlike homeowners, they will not be compensated in the same fashion because of the loss of their housing units. The FEIS indicates that with regard to the $700,000 per year average of TIF generated by the Best Buy development to be dedicated specifically to the Richfield HRA, specific decisions about how it will be used have not been made. The Metropolitan Council encourages Richfield to use this fund to assist the development and preservation of affordable rental housing in the city. The thousands of jobs that may result from this redevelopment represent a significant potential employment opportunity to the city's 5,000+ renters. This will conclude the Council's review of the Final EIS. The Council will take no formal action on the Final EIS. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Greg Pates, Principal Reviewer, at 651- 602 -1410 or by e-mail at greg.pates@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, /jj" Helen A. Boyer Director, Environmental Services cc: Phil Riveness, Metropolitan Council District 5 Keith Buttleman, Director, MCES Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department Eli Cooper, Director, MCCD Planning and Growth Management Department Richard Thompson, Supervisor, Comprehensive Planning Karen Jensen, MCES Environmental Planning & Evaluation Department Phyllis Hanson, Sector Representative, Comprehensive Planning Greg Pates, Principal Reviewer, Comprehensive Planning BLOOMINGTON • EDEN PRAIRIE • EDINA • MAPLE GROVE • MINNETONKA • PLYMOUTH • RICHFIELD 1 -494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION 8080 Mitchell Road a Eden ReWe MN 55344 • (612)699.4228 • FAX 690 -4094 ILA November 10, 2000 = �( 4 t -13"00 Julie Urban, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator 2000 City of Richfield ®� 0 6700,Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement (PETS) – Richfield Best Buy Campus Dear Ms. Urban: The I-494 Corridor Commission, a Joint Powers Organization (JPO) representing the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie Edina, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield, hereby submits the following comments regarding the Richfel Best Buy Campus Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement or (FEIS). As you are aware, the I-494 Corridor Commission has also submitted similar comments about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement earlier this fall. I Despite the information contained in the FEIS and the comments prepared by staff in response to our letter dated September 18, 2000, the Corridor Commission continues to express its concern over the inadequacy of the Best Buy proposed TDM Plan at it Richfield campus. Our concerns lie in two distinct areas: the lack of an adequate number of preferential parking spaces (25 are proposed in the FEIS TDM Plan) at the site that will encourage Best Buy workers to carpool or vanpool; and the lack of a financial commitment on the part of Best Buy to provide additional incentives for carpoolers and vanpoolers other than thost� offered at the regional level to all employers. The concern about an adequate number of allotted preferential parking spaces at the site stems from the 494/Penn interchang and mainline traffic generation estimates contained within the FEIS and prepared both by BRW staff as well as comment by Benshoof and Associates to the City. After reviewing the estimates for the 494/Penn ramp meter entrances (both eastbound and westbound), it is clear that, in a worst case scenario, the 494 ramp meters could be as much as 87 percent over capacity ( Benshoof estimate). Given the fact that MnDOT has informed the Corridor Commission that no ramp mete bypasses will be constructed at these two 494 entrances until at least 2006, it is of critical importance that the number o estimated peak hour vehicles arriving and departing the proposed Best Buy site be reduced substantially, or long queues durin peak hours will occur and back up traffic along Penn and other local streets on both sides of 494. Should traffic be diverte from 494/Penn because of excessive queue lengths, other access points to 494 (France, Lyndale) will also incur huge traffi increases during peak hours, especially in the afternoon. The 250 preferential parking spaces proposed at the corporate headquarters site represent only % of the totals aces lanned� Y P P (7500); at present the current Best Buy headquarters site in Eden Prairie has approximately 2200 parking spaces with 90 spaces allotted for preferential parking —a 4% ratio. This decrease in the ratio of preferential parking on- campus in a suburban marke where transit ridership at best represents a 2 -5% modal split (thereby rendering transit access to the site a less attractive optio for most SOV commuters) in unsettling and puzzling. The Corridor Commission expects the cost of designating more preferential parking to be very low (signage costs only) as the spaces are proposed to be built anyway and enforcement o preferential parking would already be occurring. Given these facts, it is unclear why Best Buy would not wish to increase it ratio of preferential parking substantially, considering the fact that it is one of the most cost - effective and easiest -to- implement incentives an employer can offer its employees. A r 1494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION 8080 Mites Road * Eden Prairie MN 55344 • (611:)699.4228 • FAX 6904094 Finally, given that Best Buy has already considered offering other incentives for its employees to use transit (i.e., Metropass) and wishes to encourage the startup and continuation of vanpools and carpools to the site, we feel that a TDM budget item which demonstrates the fiduciary commitment of Best Buy to encourage SOV commuters unable to utilize transit should be considered. Specifically, a line item should be included within the TDM Budget that provides money for further "buydown" of vanpool and carpool participants to the site on a regular basis. Many other employers, including Advantek in Minnetonka and Super Valu in Eden Prairie, have successfully deployed this incentive to encourage the development and sustained commitment of employees choosing to carpool and vanpool to and from work. Given the costs of building additional parking stalls at the site to accommodate additional employee traffic, an annual commitment of as little as $10,000 could be both cost - efficient and effective in convincing employees not to drive alone to and from work. Having met directly with the Director of Corporate Architecture, Della Kolpin, the Corridor Commission is encouraged b Best rP g Y Buy's willingness to improve upon the TDM Plan submitted for the FEIS. However, the Commission strongly urges the City of Richfield to require a signed letter of corporate intent to follow the revised TDM Plan included as part of the Final EIS document, as is done in other 494 cities (Eden Prairie and Minnetonka) before the construction permitting process is underway. This safeguard will ensure that Best Buy will conform to the promises made in the TDM Plan and that it will carry forth a process to implement the plan immediately. Should you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to contact me at (952) 941 -1040. Sincerely, 1.�Ss Thorfm n Jr. Chair I-494 Corridor Commission cc: Metropolitan Council 1 City of Bloomington City of Eden Prairie City of Edina City of Maple Grove City of Minnetonka City of Plymouth City of Richfield 1 oilcity of bloomington, minnesota 2215 West Old Shakopee Road • Bloomington MN 55431 -3096 • 952 - 563 -8780 • FAX 952 - 563 -8754 • TTY 952 -563 -8740 Gene L. Winstead Mayor November 7, 2000 Julie Urban, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) — Richfield Best Buy Campus Dear Ms. Urban: Mark Bernhardsoni City Manager I On November 6, 2000, the Bloomington City Council authorized transmittal of the following comments on the Richfield Best Buy Campus Final Environmental Impact Statement. As discussed in Bloomington's comment letter on the Draft EIS, Best Buy's proposed redevelopment requires the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue/I -494 interchange. While the proposed interchange improvements will ultimately benefit us all, the improvements are not without significant concerns, especially for businesses in Bloomington that rely on the interchange. Given that interchange reconstruction is needed and will occur at some point in the future, sooner is preferred to later. The Best Buy project schedule requires complete bridge and freeway access closure for a period of several months. It will be of utmost importance to minimize disruption to businesses and residents during the reconstruction. Richfield and its project partners must continue to inform the affected property owners and businesses regarding the interchange reconstruction process. The City Council strongly recommends that reconstruction occur in the months between January and November 2002. Section 4.1 Erosion Control (Page 4 -1) The Final EIS states that a maximum of 15,000 cubic yards of soil will be removed from the site. The proposed truck route for soil removal is Penn Ave. to I-494. Will all soil removal be accomplished before the Penn Ave* A -494 interchange closure in January of 2002? If not, what truck route would be used for soil removal? Plans for roadway cleaning along the truck route should be developed and added to the Final EIS. 2. Section 4.2 Surface Water Runoff (Page 4-2) The Final EIS indicates that post development quality and quantity of surface water runoff are improved over pre- development levels due to the proposed pond system. Bloomington encourages implementation of the recommended surface water runoff mitigation measures. 3. Section 5.0 Traffic A. As documented in the Final EIS, the traffic impacts associated with the 9,500 employee /1.9 million square feet alternative are excessive and cannot be successfully mitigated. Bloomington continues to recommend that the 9,500 employee /1.9 million square feet alternative not be further pursued. An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer I Ms. Julie Urban, AICP November 7, 2000 Page 2 of 3 B. The Final EIS shows that traffic generated by the proposed project (7,500 or 9,500 employees) will degrade the level of service for several individual movements at Bloomington intersections and also increase the queue lengths at several Bloomington intersections. This level of service degradation will be increased after the I- 494/1 -35W interchange improvements are in place, since access to Penn Avenue via I -494 from I -35W will no longer be available, leading motorists approaching the Best Buy site from the south on I -35W to exit at 82nd Street in Bloomington. To minimize the impact on the Bloomington street system, Bloomington continues to recommend aggressive transportation demand management (TDM) requirements be put in place, including staggered work schedules for employees. C. In its 2003 traffic impact analysis, the Final EIS assumes completion of the new Penn Avenue/]- 494 interchange. Occupancy of the Best Buy Campus should not occur until that improvement is in place and fully operational. D. Bloomington continues to encourage the use of a free right turn from Penn Avenue into the project site to facilitate traffic movement on Penn Avenue. 4. Section 11.1 Water Supply Changes (Page 11 -1) As referenced in the Final EIS, two large water mains (42 inch and 36 inch) that supply a large percentage of Bloomington's water bisect the project site. The proposed development will require relocation of these water mains north of I -494 and around the proposed new Penn Avenue/1 -494 Interchange south of I494. Any relocation of the water mains necessitated by the project should be funded by the project. Richfield Public Works staff has been in contact with Bloomington Public Works staff regarding coordination of the water main relocations. A reconstruction plan -and schedule needs to be determined. Plans, specifications, and sufficient easements for the replacement water mains must be approved by Bloomington Public Works. The water mains must be designed to work with planned I -494 improvements. To prevent additional shut down of these water mains during I- 494 construction, relocation of the water main on the south side of I -494 must occur at the same time as relocation of the water main on the north side. To ensure sufficient water supply to Bloomington, timing of the transition to the new mains must be carefully coordinated with and approved by Bloomington Public Works. Timing must not conflict with expansion of the Bloomington Water Treatment Plant, an expansion that may at times limit the City's capability to treat water from its ground water supply, thereby placing a very high reliance upon the water flowing through the water mains to be relocates!. Timing must also occur during non -peak periods (October 1 -April 15). The 42 -inch main and the 36 -inch main must not be out of service at the same time. 5. Section 12.6 Construction Related Impacts (Page 12 -5) Perhaps the single largest impact of the project on Bloomington will be traffic congestion and detours during the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue and I -494 interchange. While there is no way to fully avoid adverse impacts from such a major reconstruction project, project staging and construction should be done in a manner that minimizes impacts on surrounding businesses and residents. Interchange reconstruction planning should be closely coordinated with MnDOT, Bloomington, and area businesses and residents to minimize negative impacts. The bridge and access points should be closed as tittle as possible. As discussed in the Final EIS, closure must be limited to a 10 -month period between January 2002 and the beginning of November 2002. Bloomington continues to strongly recommend that the construction contract contain significant incentives for meeting deadlines and significant penalties for not. Closed access points and portions of the bridge should be placed into service as soon as those elements are available. Public education and signing efforts will need to be closely coordinated and put in place sufficiently in advance of the interchange reconstruction. Ms. Julie Urban AICP November 7, 2000 Page 3 of 3 Richfield should continue to work with MnDOT to facilitate an alternative, temporary I -494 interchange at Xerxes Avenue. The Penn Avenue/I -494 interchange should be completely operational before significant work begins on the Lyndale Avenue/I -494 interchange. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Best Buy Campus Final EIS. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Larry Lee, Community Development Director, at (952) 563 - 894.7. Sin rely, Gene Winstead Mayor \planning\eaweis\bestbuy\F'mal Comments on EIS 1 1 0 r r w i 1 1 r t i t t M A L K E R S 0 N GILLILAND MARTIN LLP SUITE 1500 AT&T TOwER 901 MAROUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3205 TELEPHONE 612-344 -1111 FACSIMILE 612- 344 -1414 Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial No. 612/3441699 November 13, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Julie Urban City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Comments on the Best Buy Campus FEIS Dear Ms. Urban: I represent Walser Automotive Group, Inc. and the owners of the real property on which the Walser dealerships are located in Richfield. I write to comment on the Best Buy Campus final environmental impact statement (FEIS). In addition to the comments submitted by others in response to the DEIS, and comments by Benshoof and Associates, Inc., in response to the FEIS, I believe the FEIS does not comply with the applicable statute and rules in many ways, including but not limited to the following: Before commenting on specific sections of the FEIS, I wish to make a few general observations regarding the City of Richfield's environmental review of this proposed project. First, the pace that the City of Richfield has set (and has been maintaining) for this environmental review is much too aggressive given the proposed project. The size of the proposed Best Buy Campus and the chosen location at the intersection of Interstates 494 and 35W make it particularly complex, particularly in terms of traffic, noise and air - quality impacts. Additionally, the fact that the campus would displace several businesses and no less than 169 housing units —most if not all of them affordable housing — raises a significant social and economic issues. Yet the City's schedule for environmental review affords little more than the minimum comment periods prescribed by EQB rules, and the City appears to be more concerned about its schedule than about the environmental review process itself. This leads to my second general comment: In several sections of the FEIS, the analysis is not at all thoughtful or searching, and at times it is conclusory. For example, in various subsections, the analysis consists of a statement that a particular environmental effect will not exceed the applicable legal standard or that the City is not legally required to correct the expected 44588 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 2 effect. Similarly, some of the City's responses to comments on the DEIS are defensive and non- responsive. The central purpose of an EIS is to analyze and evaluate a proposal's significant environmental effects. However, and perhaps it is because of the City's apparent concern about deadlines, this FEIS does not adequately analyze environmental effects, nor does it adequately respond to comments directed to alternatives and mitigation measures. My third comment is also related to the fast, schedule- conscious pace of this environmental review process. Since publication of the DEIS, the City has obtained Metropolitan Council approval of comprehensive plan amendments that are necessitated by the proposed Best Buy Campus. Similarly, the Richfield Planning Commission has (1) approved rezoning of the project property, (2) approved a conditional use permit for the project, and (3) approved a PUD (planning unit development) plan for the project. The granting of these approvals violates EQB rules and increases the likelihood that the project will be developed as currently proposed. Alternatives The consideration of alternatives is at the heart of an EIS. Under EQB rules, an EIS must compare the proposal with reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. An EIS must address one or more alternative sites, alternative designs or layouts, and alternative project scales, unless such alternatives would not meet the project's underlying need or purpose, or would not have any significant environmental benefit compared to the project as proposed. The FEIS does not compare the proposal with any alternative site. The DEIS indicates that in the summer of 1999, Best Buy ruled out other locations, as well as expansion of its current Eden Prairie campus, because of such factors as infrastructure, functionality of existing buildings, financial considerations, and the location of the company's current employee base. In other words, a critical component of the EIS was handled privately by Best Buy before the environmental review process began, without governmental or public input, and without a meaningful comparison of environmental effects. Furthermore, the fact that Best Buy favors the Richfield site for a variety of reasons does not mean that alternative sites could not meet the project's need or purpose. The FEIS does consider alternative designs and project scales, but the consideration is artificial. The two design alternatives are a configuration of four buildings or a configuration of five buildings. But the differences are fundamentally esthetic; in virtually all categories of environmental effects, the two "alternatives" are identical. The goal of an EIS—to avoid, lessen and mitigate environmental impacts is not at all served. The FEIS also describes only two density alternatives. Option A, which calls for the lesser density of 1.58 million square feet and 7,500 parking spaces, is described as the "expected development." Thus Option B, which is significantly more dense and would result in more environmental effects than Option A, is not really an "alternative." Option B serves the purpose 44588 *' Julie Urban . November 13, 2000 Page 3 of making Option A look better, but again, comparing the two is an artificial exercise that misses the point of environmental review. No less dense alternatives have been analyzed. Loss of affordable housing One of the most significant effects of the proposed Best Buy Campus would be the loss of some 170 units of affordable housing. The loss would be vast in size, as well as irreversible. Yet this effect is barely discussed. The FEIS's statement that displaced property owners would be financially compensated for their property does not begin to address the social impacts presented. The FEIS does not examine (1) whether the loss of this housing will push the displaced residents toward the outer reaches of the metropolitan area; (2) the effect that the loss of this housing will have on remaining sections of this neighborhood; (3) what concrete measures the City of Richfield will take to replace these housing units or otherwise mitigate the effects of the loss. Bridge and road projects likely require independent environmental review The Traffic Impact Study assumes that as a result of the Best Buy Campus project, the Penn Avenue bridge over I494 will be reconstructed to a single -point diamond interchange design, and Penn Avenue itself will be widened. These significant changes would be constructed eight years ahead of schedule because of the Best Buy Campus project. Additionally, the Traffic Impact Study assumes that as a result of the Best Buy Campus project, 76' Street will be reconstructed between Penn Avenue and I -35W, including intersections and ramps. While the FEIS discusses these separate projects in its Traffic Impact Study as a way to mitigate some of the effects of the Best Buy Campus Project, the implication is that these projects need to be designed and built with just the Best Buy Campus project in mind. But in fact, these projects must be considered in light of regional traffic /commuter issues and other area developments, whether existing or planned. In other words, these projects are of such size and �! regional importance that they should be the subject of an independent environmental review process that is coordinated with the preparation of an EIS on the proposed Best Buy Campus proj ect. Impact During Construction There is no analysis of the impact of rerouted traffic (and related noise and carbon monoxide levels) through residential neighborhoods- and elsewhere while the Penn Avenue Interchange is under construction. -' Comments Previously Submitted related to the DEIS and still applicable to the FEIS. 1. The noise analysis in the FEIS does not include impacts on other relevant 1 44188 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 4 receptors, which, as you know, would include especially all residential and other Noise Area Classification Uses pursuant to Minnesota Rules 7030.0050. 2. There is not an adequate analysis of the noise in the FEIS which will emanate from the Best Buy Campus or an adequate analysis of the impacts of noise from vehicles traveling to and from the Best Buy Campus. The response by the City has been that there is an exemption under State law for such traffic noise. Assuming arguendo there is, there still is noise impact that must be addressed. The City can not just state that because of some alleged exemption, mitigation need not be addressed. 3. The carbon monoxide analysis in the FEIS does not include a sufficient number of receptor sites which are affected by the project and the analysis to date was based on a faulty and incomplete traffic analysis. 4. The FEIS does not adequately address the impacts of the project on the public roadways for the years between 2003 and 2022 and does not adequately address the impact of the project if certain assumed improvements to the public roadways set forth in the DEIS and FEIS are not completed by the times assumed in the FEIS. 5. The FEIS does not adequately consider the impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with other projects or potential projects which are planned, approved or under construction impacting the same relevant area of study. Very truly yours, D. MajlxA�� Bruce D. Malkerson cc: Barbara Jerich Carrie Wolski 44588 i LFrn l i1 B'.,,:a L "NSso i LNt l0 `� VOC3T 601 SECOND AvENUE SouTH SUITE 4200 MNNEAPous, MmmmEsm 55402 -4302 612 339 -6321 ■ FAcsimu 612 338 -0535 Christopher S. Hayhoe (612) 373 -8505 Facsimile: (612) 338 -4608 r; a -mail: chayhoe@felhaber.com November 13, 2000 Ms. Julie Urban Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 2100M EsoTA WORLD TRADE CENTER 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MmNEsoTA 55101 -4901 651.222 -6321 ■ FACSIMILE 651222-8905 RE: Best Buy Campus Project; Final Environmental Impact Statement Our File No. 9908.047.001 Dear Ms. Urban: As you know from previous correspondence, this office represents the owners of the Fountainhead Apartments and their managing agent, Highland Management Group, Inc. In my letter to the City of September 26, 2000, the owners of Fountainhead expressed their concerns about the proposed rezoning of a portion of the project site and IM firild unit V v 1 tme nt pl. = . The of � merV requested about th adoption of BVdL "".Y V jLan p that the Planning Commission defer action on these matters pending adoption of specific measures to mitigate the material adverse consequences of the development on Fountainhead. In my letter of September 28, 2000, the owners supplied additional comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( "DEIS "). We have now reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement ( "FEIS ") dated October 30, 2000, and wish to advance the following additional questions and concerns about the project. 1. Incorporation of Prior Comments. We incorporate the objections addressed in our letters to the City dated September 26 and 28, 2000, respectively. Our objections have not been resolved in the FEIS. IMPLS 164831 -1 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 2 2. Inadequacy of the MS. Neither the DEIS nor the FEIS offers any specific information about, or any tangible solution to, the significant impacts that the project will have on the Fountainhead Apartments for both access and parking purposes if Alternative 2 Option A, and the southerly realignment of 76th Street, are adopted. The City's response to Comment J3 in the FEIS acknowledges this fundamental deficiency in the evaluation of the environmental impacts of the project on Fountainhead. Among the specific deficiencies in the FEIS as it relates to Fountainhead are these: a. Access. The FEIS does not address the material impacts that elimination of Fountainhead's northerly access to Knox Avenue will have on the property. Elimination of this access will be exceptionally detrimental to Fountainhead, not only from a convenience and internal traffic movement standpoint, but as a matter of public safety. We believe that the owners of Fountainhead were required, at the time of its construction, to provide two access points to Knox Avenue in order to permit legally- sufficient access to the property for fire safety purposes. The FEIS does not commit to maintaining two access points, simply stating that the City is "exploring" that -- possibility.. The Fountainhead community has a right to expect more than that, particularly when the City's preferred realignment of 76th Street requires elimination of that access. Neither does the FEIS offer any clear indication or commitment to maintaining reasonable access to Fountainhead during reconstruction. of 76th Street. We have learned from the FEIS that most Best Buy construction traffic will use Knox to access 76th Street. We also note from the DEIS that reconstruction of 76th Street from I -35 through Penn Avenue will occur at the same time as Best Buy construction, as will reconstruction of the intersections of 76th Street and York Avenue, and 76th Street and Penn Avenue, and reconstruction of the Penn Avenue bridge over I-494. We have also learned in the FEIS that the south frontage road between Knox Avenue and Penn will be . permanently closed while this construction work is in process. All of these activities will materially affect Fountainhead residents' abilities to access their homes, yet the FEIS acknowledges that the "exact impacts" of all of these activities on Fountainhead are not known. Our residents are entitled to more protection than the FEIS provides. MPIS 164831 -1 1 1 1 r 1 1 t 11 1 t 1 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 3 MPLS 164831 -1 b. Parldn2. The FEIS advises that no improvements to Knox Avenue will be made if the 7500 - employee development alternative is selected by Best Buy. It also makes clear, however, that all 18 parking spaces in Knox Avenue now used by Fountainhead residents will be eliminated, regardless of the development alternative pursued by Best Buy. At the same time, the DEIS, as incorporated into the FEIS, acknowledges that the City's preferred alignment of 76th Street to the south will require the taking and/or reconstruction of Fountainhead garages now located on the north side of the site. Yet no information is supplied about the number of garages impacted by the City's plans, or. how Fountainhead will be able to replace or relocate those spaces, as well as the 18 public parking spaces located on Knox. This is a significant flaw in the FEIS analysis. The lack of information is perhaps even more significant if Best Buy elects to pursue the 9500 - employee development alternative. The FEIS suggests that development ' of the Best Buy campus to that density will require construction of a new right -turn lane on Knox Avenue. Since Best Buy's five -story parking structure will effectively prevent expansion of the Knox Avenue right -of -way to the west, addition of a right -turn lane to Knox will obviously require that a significant portion of existing apartment buildings be taken from Fountainhead. Such a taking will also materially impact garages and other improvements on both the north and the south sides of the Fountainhead site. The FEIS does not supply any information as to how the loss of this additional parking (and of significant portions of two apartment buildings) will be mitigated. c. Traffic. The FEIS predicts that the traffic on Knox Avenue will double as a consequence of construction of the project if a 7500 - employee development is selected by Best Buy. This projection does not account for the impact on Knox Avenue that will be caused by the permanent closing of the south frontage road from Knox to Penn Avenue. This impact may be expected to be material in that all Galyan's traffic will use Knox, rather than the -frontage road, for access to the property. At the time that the Galyan's project was under consideration by the City, it was represented that "most" Galyan's customer traffic, and virtually all of its truck traffic, would access the property using the frontage road. Obviously, elimination Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 4 of the frontage road will divert all of that traffic onto Knox Avenue to 76th Street. This material increase in traffic is not described in the FEIS. Further, we are frustrated that the FEIS lists eight potential alignments for the Knox Avenue /76th Street intersection but does not indicate which alignment will be selected. It is not possible for us to evaluate the impacts of all eight proposed alignments without understanding specifically how some of them would be constructed. From the descriptions of the options set forth in Section 6.4 of the FEIS, it is apparent to us that options 6 and 7 will permit the interests of both Fountainhead and the Colony Apartments to be partially accommodated from both a safety and a convenience standpoint. We join in the comments made by ROP Investments Co., LLP, in its letter to the City dated November 13, 2000 with respect to the conditions to our approval of these options for the intersection. Finally, although we acknowledge that the FEIS indicates that the Best Buy parking structure's principal entrance and exit point at Knox will be relocated to the south (apparently to avoid direct conflict with Fountainhead's southerly access, and perhaps to mitigate headlight glare into the apartments), that relocation impedes the access of Fountainhead residents to northbound Knox Avenue by supplying Best Buy traffic with the right-of-way. This could materially impede Ingress and egress to Fountainhead at its only point of access to Knox. The FEIS does not address that complication. d. Extension of Construction Period. It appears from the FEIS that the beginning of Best Buy's phased occupancy of the project has been extended from.June 2002 to November 2002. The FEIS does not address in any fashion the reasons for, or the impact of, that extension of the construction period on the community, including Fountainhead. 3. General. Comments. The FEIS demonstrates that a 9500 - employee development simply cannot be accommodated at the proposed site. We urge the City to reject that alternative as environmentally insupportable. We also ask the City to take seriously the legitimate concerns of neighboring residents and businesses who have contributed to the City for decades. The MPLS 164831 -1 Julie Urban November 13, 2000 Page 5 Fountainhead owners are concerned that the project's aggressive schedule, and the sometimes strident tone of the FEIS's response to citizen comments, make the project -- in whatever configuration Best Buy wants -- to be inevitable. The City should not permit its apparent conclusion that construction of the Best Buy campus should proceed regardless of the consequences to justify requiring its existing citizens and businesses to bear a disproportionate share of the project's detrimental impacts. The failure of the FEIS to resolve or. mitigate the project's material adverse impacts on Fountainhead should result in the City's determination that it is inadequate, barring pursuit of the project until those adverse impacts are satisfactorily remedied or eliminated. Thank you for your consideration of these additional comments. Very truly yours, Christopher S. ayhoe kmw /jad I cc: 1 Mark Z. Jones II Arlene Dixson IMPLS 164831 -1 ROP Investment Co., LLP c/o Otness Management Company 5200 Willson Road, Suite 205 Edina, Minnesota 55424 Ph: (952) 927 -0612 November 13, 2000 By Hand Delivery and By E -Mail Ms. Julie Urban, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Best Buy Campus; Final Environmental Impact Statement; Colony Apartment Homes Dear Ms. Urban: 1► -13-oD ROP Investment Co., LLP, the owner of Colony Apartment Homes, 1740%2 West 76`h Street, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 ( "Colony Apartments ") appreciates the opportunity to make the following comments to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "Final EIS ") for the Best Buy Campus (the "Project "). We and representatives of Fountainhead Apartments have a meeting scheduled at the City of Richfield on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 to discuss the intersection at West 76th Street and Knox Avenue. As discussed below, we and representatives of Fountainhead Apartments have agreed on the preferred alternatives for this intersection. Due to the fact that many features of the Project have still not been set in the Final EIS, we reserve the right to make additional comments once all features of the Project have been determined, and we have had a reasonable opportunity to complete our review. For example, the Final EIS does not make a final determination of, or contains multiple alternatives for, the following: (1) overall site plan; and (2) design for and signalization of the intersection at West 76th Street and Knox Avenue. BACKGROUND Colony Apartments consists of 212 apartments in 24 buildings. Colony Apartments is home to 400 to 500 people. The site is bounded by West 76th Street on the south, West 75th Street on the north, Logan Avenue on the west, and the Humboldt Avenue/Interstate 35W frontage road to the east. t t r] 1 1 1 1 The main access to Colony Apartments is through a two -way entrance driveway from West 76th Street, approximately 120 feet east of Knox Avenue. At this entrance, vehicles are able to enter or exit from both the east and west lanes of West 76th Street. The site layout and internal circulation of Colony Apartments were designed to orient traffic to this entrance. At least 90% of the traffic in and out of the property is through this entrance. The secondary, or back, access to Colony Apartments is located on West 75th Street. Only a small number of vehicles (10% of total traffic) use this back entrance. FINAL EIS COMMENTS ISSUE 1: Determination of Design for the Intersection of West 76th Street and Knox Avenue. We and representatives of Fountainhead Apartments have agreed that acceptable designs for the intersection of West 76`x' Street and Knox Avenue are either Option #6 (create skewed intersection) or Option #7 (create offset intersection), as set out in Section 6.4 of the Final EIS. Either of these two options will work for Colony Apartments and for Fountainhead Apartments without unduly impacting one property for the benefit of the other. Our support and the support of Fountainhead Apartments is contingent on both of these options including the following features: (1) the Colony Apartments driveway (as relocated) will be included in the traffic light at West 76th Street and Knox Avenue, and the residents of Colony Apartments will be allowed to make both left and right turns into and out of Colony Apartments at this traffic light; (2) the northerly exit from Fountainhead Apartments to Knox Avenue will be preserved; and (3) the garages at Fountainhead Apartments will be preserved. Between the two designs, Option #6 is somewhat preferred. The entrance to Colony Apartments can be relocated westward by approximately 80 feet to more closely align with a skewed intersection at Knox Avenue. For the residents of Colony Apartments, a skewed intersection may be easier to understand and to use safely in comparison to an offset intersection (Option #7). For Fountainhead Apartments, curving Knox Avenue to the west would create some additional buffer between the apartments and the street. With Option #7, the entrance to Colony Apartments can also be relocated westward by approximately 80 feet. With such a driveway relocation, the loss in storage length for the westbound turn lane on West 760' Street would be substantially less than the 200 feet stated in the Final EIS. While the Final EIS states that both Option #6 and Option #7 would reduce operational efficiency of the intersection, any loss in operational efficiency is not significant to the overall flow of traffic into or out of the Project. As set out in Section 6.5 of the Final EIS, Knox Avenue is a secondary access to the Project, serving only 17% of daily traffic to the site. In addition, the Draft Traffic Impact Statement dated August 21, 2000 states that Year 2003 Level of Service will be rated "A" or excellent for the AM Peak Period (Figures 5 -2 and 5 -6) and `B" or good for the PM Peak Period (Figures 5 -4 and 5 -8). Since both AM and PM service levels are substantially above a "D" rating, which is considered to be an acceptable level of service in urbanized areas (See Section 2.6 of Draft Traffic Impact Statement), it is reasonable to design the West 761' Street and Knox Avenue intersection to accommodate the needs of the residents of Colony Apartments and Fountainhead Apartments while at the same time keeping the level of service at this intersection at or above an acceptable rating. ISSUE 2: Design of Southbound Exit from Interstate 35W at West 76th Street. We agree with the City of Richfield's conclusion in Section 6.6 of the Final EIS that construction of a second right turn lane for the southbound exit from Interstate 35W at West 76�h Street is preferred to removal of the "No Right Turn on Red Sign ". We are substantially less sensitive to this issue if the Colony Apartments driveway is included in the traffic signal at the West 761' Street and Knox Avenue intersection. ISSUE 3: Response to Comments to Draft EIS. We do not consider the Final EIS to be responsive either to our comments to the Draft EIS or to the comments submitted by third parties. Even though this document is stated to be the final environmental impact statement, many fundamental design decisions do not appear to have been sufficiently studied as of this date. Instead of study and careful analysis of the issues raised in comments to the Draft EIS, the Final EIS contains numerous conclusions unsupported by facts or analysis. For this reason, Issues 1 through 4 of ROP Investment Co., LLP's comments to the Draft EIS are restated and incorporated by reference. We request that these issues be studied and analyzed before the City of Richfield determines whether the Final EIS is legally adequate. For example, Section 6.4 of the Final EIS states that "Right turns into and out of Colony Apartments would be easier and safer for drivers than making left turns into and out of the site ". This conclusion is counter intuitive and not supported by any facts or analysis. It is apparent that drivers who wish to travel east from Colony Apartments will turn left somehow, even if such a left turn requires: (a) a "U" turn on West 76th Street; (b) traveling across multiple lanes of traffic to turn at the West 7e Street and Knox Avenue intersection; (c) traveling through the residential neighborhood adjoining Colony Apartments; or (d) making a left turn from an uncontrolled intersection somewhere to the west of Colony Apartments. In addition, the Final EIS failed to adequately consider possible impacts on the adjoining neighborhood of inadequate access from the Colony Apartments to West 76 Street, as set out as Issue 3 in ROP Investment Co, LLP's comments to the Draft EIS. Section 5.4 of the Final EIS briefly discusses use of residential streets because of congestion on arterial roadways, but fails to study or analyze the impact on residential streets caused by inadequate access to arterial roadways. 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 NEXT STEP We are optimistic about our meeting with the City of Richfield on Tuesday, November 14, 2000. We would like to continue dialogue with the City of Richfield and work together to develop a successful design solution to the important issues discussed above. To assist us in evaluating the impacts of the Project and in creating design solutions, we have engaged the services of Westwood Professional Services, Inc., a civil and traffic engineering firm located at 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Allan Klugman, P.E. will be Westwood's main contact for this effort. He may by reached at (952) 906 -7418, or by email at allan.klugnian @, westwood sp com. To the extent that we are able to reach an agreement as to the issues set out above, we are willing to modify or withdraw this comment letter. ROP Investment Co., LLP Robert E. Otness Partner BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. oa TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ' 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO / HOPKINS, MN 55343 / (952) 238 -1667 / FAX (952) 238 -1671 November 13, 2000 Ms. Julie Urban Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 REFER TO FILE: 00 - 42 1 RE: Comments Regarding Final Environmental Impact Statement for Best Buy Campus Dear Ms. Urban: PURPOSE AND SUMMARY On behalf of the Walser Automotive Group, we have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Best Buy Campus dated October 30, 2000. Our review has focused on potential transportation impacts, similar to the scope of our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which were expressed in letters to you dated September 13 and September 26, 2000. Our comments on the body of the FEIS (Sections 1.0 through 16.0) are presented next. Following these comments, we have expressed further specific points in response to Section 17.0, Response to Comments. On a summary basis, we need to state that the FEIS includes several very serious erroneous statements regarding potential negative traffic impacts due to the Best Buy Project. These statements, which are intended to demonstrate that the project would not cause significant negative traffic impacts, are untrue based upon information presented in the FEIS and based upon other information. Instead of confirming that the project would not cause traffic difficulties, information presented in the FEIS and provided by others through comment letters clearly demonstrates that the Best Buy Project would cause significant negative traffic impacts, including: • Increased congestion on the mainline lanes for I494 and 1-3 5W. • Increased congestion and accidents on I494 between Penn Avenue and 1-3 5W due to greater weaving conflicts. 0 1 Ms. Julie Urban 2 November 13, 2000 • Substantial congestion o n Penn Avenue and 76h Street because the p.m. peak hour volumes projected to use entrance ramps from these roadways to I-494 ' and I -35W greatly exceed their capacity. • Significant through traffic use and associated negative impacts on local residential streets because motorists would seek alternative routes to avoid congestion on the I-494 and I -35W entrance ramps. 7,500 or 9,500 employees. • Table 5.15 shows during the a.m. peak hour that 1-3 5W between 66th and 7e Streets would function at the threshold between levels of service E and F under the 2003 no -build scenario, but would drop completely into level of service F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. • Table 5.16 shows during the p.m. peak hour that I494 between Xerxes and Penn Avenues would function at the threshold between levels of service E and F under the 2003 no -build scenario, but would drop completely into level of service F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. COMMENTS ON SEMONS 1.0 —16A We have comments regarding three specific types of traffic impacts which are addressed in Sections 1.0 through 16.0 in the FEIS. Ifighly erroneous and misleading statements are presented in the FEIS regarding these three types of impacts. Each of these three items is described next, together with the incorrect statements presented in the FEIS and the serious negative impacts which would occur under the build condition for the Best Buy Project. a) Impacts on mainline lanes for 1-35W and I494. Referring to Tables 5.15 and 5.16, which address 2003 volumes and levels of service on the mainline lanes of I494 and I -35W, page 5 -21 in the FEIS includes the following -statement: "For both the AM and PM time periods, the levels of service do not change with the addition of the traffic generated by the Project." This statement is incorrect because the following three points presented in Tables 5.15 and 5.16 demonstrate that the project would reduce the levels of service. tl 7,500 or 9,500 employees. • Table 5.15 shows during the a.m. peak hour that 1-3 5W between 66th and 7e Streets would function at the threshold between levels of service E and F under the 2003 no -build scenario, but would drop completely into level of service F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. • Table 5.16 shows during the p.m. peak hour that I494 between Xerxes and Penn Avenues would function at the threshold between levels of service E and F under the 2003 no -build scenario, but would drop completely into level of service F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. hour • Table 5.15 shows during the a.m. peak that I-494 between Xerxes and Penn Avenues would function within the level of service E volume range under the 2003 no -build scenario. Table 5.15 mistakenly reports this level of service as F. The table correctly reports that the quality of operations on this section of I-494 would drop to level of service F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. • Table 5.15 shows during the a.m. peak hour that 1-3 5W between 66th and 7e Streets would function at the threshold between levels of service E and F under the 2003 no -build scenario, but would drop completely into level of service F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. • Table 5.16 shows during the p.m. peak hour that I494 between Xerxes and Penn Avenues would function at the threshold between levels of service E and F under the 2003 no -build scenario, but would drop completely into level of service F with the expected development at either 7,500 or 9,500 employees. Ms. Julie Urban 3 November 13, 2000 b) Impacts on weaving operations along I494 between Penn Avenue and I 35W. Section 5.3 in the FEIS is entitled, "Weaving Analysis." Section 5.3.1 addresses existing conditions, and Section 5.3.2.A addresses potential impacts in 2003. Correlating Section 5.3.1 with the beginning of Section 5.3.2.A, the FEIS acknowledges that the 2003 build scenario-would result in a 230 foot reduction in the weaving distance (18 percent reduction) between Penn Avenue and I -35W for both the eastbound and westbound directions. Section 5.3.2.A then proceeds to reference a Mn/DOT Weaving Study and to state that the build condition would improve the weaving section between Penn Avenue and I -35W. This statement of a positive - outcome is simply not supported by the Mn/DOT study. Section 5.3.2.A includes the following three erroneous statements regarding the Mn/DOT Weaving Study: The second paragraph under Section 5.3.2.A on page 5 -29 in the FEIS indicates that the Mn/DOT Weaving Study ( a report dated in May 1999) addressed the weave conditions at Penn Avenue and I -35W with the single -point diamond interchange. This statement is false. The referenced Mn/DOT report addressed other weaving circumstances and did not address in any manner the weaving conditions between Penn Avenue and I -35W with a single point diamond interchange. • Page 5 -29 in the FEIS references the Mn/DOT Weaving Study and includes the following statement: "The Study concluded the reconstructed Penn Avenue bridge improved weaving conditions and operations on eastbound I494 west of Penn Avenue." This statement is untrue because the referenced study did not address in any manner the subjects of weaving conditions and traffic operations on eastbound I-494 west of Penn Avenue. • Page 5 -31 in the FEIS includes the following statement: "The Mn/DOT Weaving Study also simulated AM and PM peak hour No Build and build conditions for the Penn Avenue Interchange area were simulated using Synchro and TratNetsim software." This is a false statement because the referenced Mn/DOT Weaving Study report did not address any such simulation analysis. According to Attachment A included with Tom Foley's letter to Paul Czech of Mn/DOT dated October 6, 2000, this simulation analysis was a separate effort, which addressed 2022 conditions. As presented on Figure 3 in my comment. letter dated September 13, 2000, regarding the Draft EIS, the American Association of State lEghway and Transportation Officials has stated that the recommended minimum spacing between entrance and exit ramps such as Penn Avenue and I -35W is 1,575 feet. The existing spacing of 1280 feet already is 295 feet (19 percent) shorter than the recommended minimum. Contrary to the erroneous statements presented in Section 5.3.2.A of the FEIS, it is obvious that shortening of the 1 L� 11 1 1 t 1 t Ms. Julie Urban 4 November 13, 2000 weaving distance to 1050 feet under the build condition would exacerbate the already deficient condition. Interestingly, the FEIS includes a statement which contradicts the statements in Section 5.3.2.A and indicates that shortening of the weaving section would create negative impacts. This statement is provided on page 17 -9 in the response D8. In explaining the rationale for not including an HOV bypass ramp on the ramp from Penn Avenue to eastbound I-494, the following two sentences are provided: "For the eastbound HOV ramp, the proposed ramp would not be long enough to provide an effective bypass lane for high occupancy vehicles. If the ramp length were increased, it would have a.negative impact on the weaving section between Penn Avenue and the I -35W southbound ramp." c) Congestion impacts and impacts on local streets caused by capacity limitations on entrance ramps to 1-494 and 1-35W. In our Draft EIS comment letters dated September 13 and 26, 2000, we raised the issue that meters on the entrance ramps to I-494 and I -35W cause the capacity of these entrance ramps to be lower than the volumes projected to use these ramps in the 2003 and 2022 build conditions. Our comment letters indicated that this volume to capacity discrepancy would result in major congestion at the Penn Avenue/I494 interchange and also would cause negative impacts on other roadways in the area, including local streets. The FEIS includes Section 12.5, Ramp Metering Impact Analysis, to respond to our comments. This section indicates that ramp meters would be able to accommodate the expected increase in traffic volumes due to the site generated trips because MWDOT would adjust the ramp metering rate to 2.1 seconds per vehicle. This assertion that NWDOT staff would use a metering rate of 2.1 seconds is severely misleading and conflicts with the following three sentences from the last paragraph on page 12 -6 in the FEIS: "MnDOT's shortest metering rate is 2.1 seconds per vehicle. This rate is used when traffic volumes on both the freeway mainline and ramps along the mainline are low. As the volumes on the mainline and ramps increase, the metering rate typically becomes longer." During the p.m. peak period, high volumes would occur on both the mainline lanes of I -494 and I -35W and on the entrance ramps. As expressed in our comment letters dated September 13 and 26, 2000, the current metering rates during the p.m. peak period are: 5.7 seconds for the ramp from 7e Street to northbound I -35W, 4.2 seconds for the ramp from Penn Avenue to eastbound I494, and 7.0 to 15.1 seconds for the ramp from Penn Avenue to westbound I-494. Given these current rates and given Mn/DOT's practices as described in the FEIS, it is highly implausible and, therefore, seriously misleading to suggest that the rates on the entrance ramps to I-494 and I -35W would be shortened to 2.1 seconds. Rather than the ramps providing sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected volumes, the clear outcome would be that the traffic volumes projected to use the entrance ramps would exceed their capacity as noted in our comment letter dated September 26. The result would be major Ms. Julie Urban 5 November 13, 2000 congestion during the p.m. peak period on Penn Avenue at I-494 and on 76h Street at I -35W. Increased traffic use and associated negative impacts would_ occur on other roadways in the area, including local residential streets. COAMENTS ON SECTION 17.0 Section 17.0 in the FEIS consists of responses to comment letters received by the City in regard to the Draft EIS. We have comments on several of the responses presented in the FEIS. Our comments are organized according to the identification system used in the FEIS. B. Minnesota Department of Trans op rtation In a comment letter dated September 27, 2000, Paul Czech of Mn/DOT stated that access offPenn Avenue is problematic for five reasons. Tom Foley of the City Public Works Department sent a letter and an attachment to Paul Czech on October 6, 2000, which responded to Mr. Czech's September 27 letter. Paul Czech submitted a follow -up letter to Tom Foley on October 17. In regards to these items of correspondence and the statements presented in Section 17.0 of the FEIS, we have the following two comments: • In his letter dated October 6, Paul Czech indicates that the City has satisfactorily addressed four of the five issues regarding access offPenn Avenue. In his letter and in conversation with me, Paul clearly has stated that this satisfactory situation applies only to the scenario with 7,500 employees. Mn/DOT has not altered its September 27 statement that the scenario with 9,500 employees would cause five problems regarding access offPenn Avenue. • In response to a Mn/DOT comment that a single point at Penn Avenue will be stressed to its limits and will affect the operation of I-494 and I -35W, page - 17 -3 in the FEIS presents the following comment: `Based on a M MT study Of other weaving areas, and simulation of the existing and proposed conditions, the proposed Penn Avenue improvements are expected to improve operations on I-494 during peak hour conditions." As noted in points a) and b) presented earlier in this letter, the preceding statement is incorrect and seriously misleading. E. I-494 Corridor Commission In its comment letter, the I-494 Corridor Commission raised a comment (identified as Comment E2 on page 17 -10 of the FEIS) that the Best Buy Project would increase congestion on I-494 when this freeway is reconstructed. As presented on the bottom of page 17 -10, the response is that no significant problems would arise when I-494 is reconstructed between TH 100 and 346 Avenue because the number of lanes is expected to remain the same in both directions. In our judgment, that response is incorrect because F] �l I� 1 1 1 1 f i Ms. Julie Urban 6 November 13, 2000 the traffic capacity on I494 likely ill be reduced during construction due to factors that Y g will include: a) reduction in lane width, b) loss of shoulders, and c) lane shifts. Another question raised b the I-494 Corridor Commission is: How will queue lengths be y q gths controlled at the I494 entry points and on the Penn Avenue bridge during the PM peak period? The response presented on page 17 -11 refers back to previous statements in the FEIS, which indicate that this will not be a problem. As expressed under point c) earlier in this letter, such statements in the FEIS are incorrect. Traffic queuing and congestion will occur at the Penn Avenue/I -494 interchange because the capacities of the entrance ramps are less than the volumes projected to use the ramps. H. Benshoof & Associates, Inc. As previously mentioned, our comments on the Draft EIS were presented in letters dated September 13 and 26, 2000. One comment, identified as HI on page 17 -17 in the FEIS, involved discrepancies between traffic forecasts and existing volumes at intersections on 76a' and 77a' Streets. We have the following two comments regarding the response presented on pages 17 -17 and 17 -18 in the FEIS: • The level of service results for signalized intersections in the DEIS and the FEIS have been determined using a SimTraffic simulation. The normal traffic engineering practice is to use Synchro or Highway Capacity Software (HCS) for determination of level of service. Results from SimTraffic are not always compatible with HCS or Synchro results. At the intersection of 77" Street and Lyndale Avenue, the p.m. peak hour volumes for the 2003 scenario with 7,500 employees (based -on the September 2000 counts) would operate at level of service D when analyzed with Synchro or HCS. The SimTraffic results indicate that the intersection would operate at level of service C. In comparison to normal level of service calculation methodologies, SimTraffic has underestimated the delay and level of service at this intersection. • The FEIS:indicates that the 2003 p.m. peak hour volumes with 7,500 employees were updated to reflect higher existing volumes than presented in the DEIS. Yet, with the increase in volumes using the intersection of 77h Street and Lyndale Avenue, the analysis shows an increase in level of service. This increase in level of service is explained on page 17 -18 as follows: "The improvement occurred because the volume collected by Benshoof was 100 vehicles less than the predicted average used in the DEIS." It is unclear what was meant by this reduction and, in fact, whether such a reduction would occur. One factual item is that the total volume entering the intersection of 77h Street and Lyndale Avenue -during the p.m. peak hour under the 2003 scenario with 7,500 employees would be 124 vehicles higher using the Benshoof data than as presented in the DEIS. The increase in level of service presented in the FEIS is an illogical outcome when the total volume entering the intersection increases. This situation provides further merit to the argument that the SimTraffic simulation used in the FEIS Ms. Julie Urban 7 November 13, 2000 yields level of service results that are not as valid as results produced through the standard methodologies presented in Synchro or the Highway Capacity Software. Comment H3 on page 17 -18 is that potential traffic impacts on the mainline lanes of I- 494 were not analyzed. The response refers to Section 5.2 in the FEIS. As indicated under point a) earlier in this letter, Section 5.2 indicates that the Best Buy project would cause a reduction in levels of service on I-494 and I -35W during under the 2003 build condition. Comment H4 on page 17 -18 is that traffic impacts have not been analyzed for the approximate five year period in which traffic flow on I-494 between TH 100 and 30 Avenue will be significantly disrupted due to reconstruction of I-494. Reference is made to the response to comment E2 raised by the I-494 Corridor Commission. In our judgment, that response is highly inadequate because it simply indicates that no problems would occur because the same number of lanes would be provided in each direction during the construction period. As mentioned earlier, this response ignores the reduction in traffic capacity on I494 that would occur due to the reduction in lane widths, probable loss of shoulders, and lane shifts. Comment H5 on page 17 -18 pertains to the potentially serious safety and congestion impacts to traffic flow on I494 between Penn Avenue and I -35W due to shorter weaving distances and increased weaving volumes. Reference is made to Section 5.3 in the FEIS. As mentioned under point b) earlier in this letter, Section 5.3 includes several statements that are highly erroneous and misleading. Available information clearly indicates that the planned `design for the Penn Avenue/I494 interchange would exacerbate the current deficiency in the weaving distance between Penn Avenue and I -35W, which in turn would increase congestion and safety problems. Comment H6, which begins on page 17 -18, pertains to the issue that the traffic volumes projected to use the entrance ramps to I-494 at Penn Avenue and to northbound I -35W at 76 Street exceed the ramp capacities. The FEIS refers to Section 12.5 and includes the following statement on page 17 -19: "However, because MnDOT adjusts meters to shorter cycle lengths, based on traffic volumes, the capacity of the ramps would not be exceeded." As explained under point c) earlier in this letter, the preceding statement is completely false. The volumes projected in the Draft EIS substantially exceed the ramp capacities because Mn/DOT uses longer metering rates, as stated in Section 12.5, when the ramp and mainline volumes are high. Comment H7 on page 17 -19 pertains to potential major traffic impacts on local streets due in part to trips diverted from freeway entrance ramps. The response in the FEIS is that there will be little incentive for traffic to use local streets for two reasons: a) ramp metering rates will be adjusted to accommodate the projected volumes and b) the capacity will be increased on local arterials. We strongly disagree with that response and would state, to the contrary, that motorists would have a major incentive to use local streets to avoid the substantial congestion that would occur. on Penn Avenue and 76h n Ms. Julie Urban 8 November 13, 2000 Street because the capacity of the entrance ramps to I-494 and I -35W would be considerably below the projected volumes. CONCLUSIONS Several statements in the FEIS, which are intended to demonstrate that the Best Buy Project would not have significant negative traffic impacts, are highly erroneous and misleading. Using information presented in the FEIS and information provided by others, it is evident that the Best Buy.Project would cause the following four types of significant negative traffic impacts: • Increased congestion on the mainline lanes for I494 and I -35W. Aside from the no -build option, the FEIS has not addressed any development alternative that would not cause the above referenced negative traffic impacts. Sincerely, BENSH F & SSO IATES, INC. )mes.A. Benshoof c. Mr. Paul Czech, MWDOT 1 Mr. Mark Filipi, Metropolitan Council Mr. Ross Thorfinnson, I494 Corridor Commission 1� • Increased congestion and accidents on I-494 between Penn Avenue and I -35W due to greater weaving conflicts. • Substantial congestion on Penn Avenue and 76h Street because the p.m. peak hour volumes projected to use entrance ramps from these roadways to I-494 and I -35W greatly exceed their capacity. • Significant through traffic use and associated negative impacts on local residential streets because motorists would seek alternative routes to avoid congestion on the I-494 and I -35W entrance ramps. Aside from the no -build option, the FEIS has not addressed any development alternative that would not cause the above referenced negative traffic impacts. Sincerely, BENSH F & SSO IATES, INC. )mes.A. Benshoof c. Mr. Paul Czech, MWDOT 1 Mr. Mark Filipi, Metropolitan Council Mr. Ross Thorfinnson, I494 Corridor Commission 1� 6744 Wentworth Av. S. Richfield, MN 55423 November 13, 2000 Julie Urban, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Julie, Comments follow on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Best Buy Campus, dated October 30, 2000. Perhaps these should be directed to the City Council for consideration of adequacy of the EIS. Preparation of the EIS by unbiased experts was promised. The firm of BRW, who designed the roadway system, also prepared the EIS technical response. Similarly, the City Department assigned as the responsible government unit raises questions. Traffic remains a concern. Failure to use the I-494 frontage road to cariysome of the traffic places a greater load on 76th Street to the west of Penn Avenue. If this leads to widening of 76th Street west of Penn, more houses will be lost and the future of single family residences west of Penn Avenue and south of 76th Street may change. Cost questions related to the project remain. Risk analysis was only lightly treated. There is no indication that the City's General Fund will benefit from additional revenues for the 25 year term of the Tax Increment Finance district. Very truly yon, Larry Wozniczka 1 1 L_J t '.l 1 I 7 November 10, 2000 Ms. Julie Urban Planning and Zoning Administrator 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Mn 55423 would like to submit the following comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement that 1 have now reviewed in its' entirety: Comment 1: Section 1.3.4 Traffic (g) Residential Streets. A traffic analysis st�l! has not been done on the north/south arterial streets to assess whether or not the increase in traffic from buses and all of the employees that reside in Minneapolis, north of Richfield is going to have a detrimental effect. 'these are the employees most likely to travel through neighborhoods, but there are no studies in the EIS to address this concern. in public comments and written comments after reviewing the ULIS. I specifically brought to your attention the need to address the additional traffic and buses on existing bus routes and the N/S arterial streets. These arterial streets are both commercial and residential and the numbers of pedestrians crossing them are high. 1 suggested these roads should be studied In order to mitigate the increase in traffic. l believe that another street that will be greatly affected with increased traffic and buses is 76°i Street between Portland Avenue and 35W. Employees.travelling south on the NIS arterial streets will not go all the way.to 77"' Street, they will turn off and cut through on 76'f'. Likewise, they will cut off to 76h street on the way home to get to the northbound street. The I"CIS TnTALLY FAILS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES even though brought to your attention in a proper, timely manner.. It appears to me that this is in violation of MR 44102800 Subpart 4 (a) and (b). The EiS cannot be considered complete until this issue has been analytically addressed. Comment 2: The FEIS still does not accurately address the effects of additional bases on the arterial streets and at the intersections studied on air quality and noise quality. (Page 1 -5 R 1-6.1 =.6) Although your Response states that a figure of 2% was used, it is impossible to accurately predict the effbcts if it is not know for a certainty, how many Best Buy employees will bus. Again, studies-should have been done taking into account the best and worst case scenarios — No Build, 7,500 employees and 9,500 employees. Therefore, 1 want it on the record that I still believe that the FEIS is not complete. Comment 3: Analysis at all intersections stil do not include the Increase in buses. This is a valid concern, and the FEiS is not complete without a study done to analyze the effects of additional buses oft storage lengths and queues at each intersection. 1 would like it on the record that 1 still believe the traffic analysis is inaccurate and invalid. Comment 4. - 1.3.4, Page 1 -5 Residential Streets. Your response is non - responsive. Smoother traffic flow on the main streets may give less reason for people to cut through side streets, but it does not in any way discourage it. OneA again, before the FEiS is approved, further studies need to be dune to mitigate ways to physically discourage employees from straying off the main arterial streets. Comment 5: The FEIS states in Response 81 that the north/south arterial roadways are Portland, Nicullet, Lyndale, Penn and York. (Page 17.3) However, in Section 5.4 — Cvaluation of Residential Streets- Even though it is stated in the FMS that these streets are expected to be relievers of freeway traffic, NO STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE AT ALL to determine the possible adverse effects of all of the increased traffic on these arterial streets and the safety of pedestrians. All traffic studies have been concentrated on intersections. Portland. Nicollet, and Lyndale are all residential streets from about 67"' to 76 "' Streets. I brought this up in my written comments to the DEIS. and my concerns have not been addressed. ('See Comment 1.) Comment 6: 5.1.1 Growth Rate. You state that an average growth rate of 0 5 percent per year wa. used How do you figure that ? If it continues to grow at a rate of 0.5 percent a year, what will be the actual growth rate when you add in the 7,500 or 9,500 employees? Comment 7: Your response to Comment R2 in totally non - responsive. Section 5.4 does not address any mitigation measures on the N -S arterial streets and bus routes as admitted anticipated relievers of freeway traffic. For the record, your non - response to this issue in the FEIS makes the FEIS incomplete and inadequate. Comment 8: Your Response to S -3 is non - responsive. To pull out the table setting forth how Rest Buy HOPES to achieve a reduction in the number of trips from the RDTMDP does not invalidate the fact that conceivably an unmanageable number of buses may have to be added to the bus routes if Best Buy has 7,500 or 9.500 employees. A study ofbest and worst case scenarios should have been done on this issue. The table in your response is a GOAL with no facts or figures of the actual 7.500/9„500 employees to hack it up. As such, it should not even be considered in the FEIS as a response to my comment. I want it on record that T do not accept this as a valid response to my concems. Comment 9: Comment W 1 In Section 12.6 is non - responsive. You misstated the flaw I pointed out ill my prior comments on the DETS. I want to know where you are going to route all ofthe traffic during the widening of 76s' Street and the construction of the Penn Avenue bridge. Comment 10: Response to BB2: How was the figure of 2% arrived at for buses, commercial vehicles or heavy trucks'? Where is that set forth in the EIS? How do you know 2% is accurate? -If the 1ND is successful, 2% sounds to be quite low, and such an important factor in congestion should be studied at the least and worst case scenarios. Here again, as it is impossible to come up with any accurate figures based upon the 7,500 or 9,500 employees, the preparers are just coming up with figures to justify an unjustifiable project. In Summary: After reviewing the FETS,1 want it on the record that I do not believe that all of the conditions in Minnesota Rule 4410.2800 Subp. 4. have been met. 'though 1 cannot comment on all of them, this FEIS is full of inadequate responses to the comments of interested parties, it does not address all of the potentially significant issues that have been brought to the attention of the RCU and Proposer, and reasonable studies to address those issues have not even been attempted by the RGU and Proposer. This project has too tremendous numbers of possibilities of detrimental impacts on the City of Richfield. The FEIS should include studies on every little possible effect it may have on our city. I would submit for tite record, that from my understanding of the Minnesota Rules, if the Richfield City Council rules that this FF..tS is adequate, they are in violation of Minnesota Rule 4410.2800 Subp. 4 f a) and (b). (STAT AUT11: ms 116D.04; 116D.045) Respectfully submitted, AJ'V #V'ae Peggy Handt 7545 Colfax Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 798 -0078 (h) (612) 627 -1859 (w) TOTAL P.03 F]� IDear Julie Urban, 17, 1 1 1 I can't help but feel like Best Buy is nothing but a massive township, moving into a somewhat small city, and into an already busy area, and then, expecting everyone residing within a calculated radius of the development to accommodate its people by significantly changing streets and traffic flow. And not to mention the homes, apartments, businesses and residents who are being demanded to make this change by moving out, weather they like it or not. This is unacceptable. And after talking with my neighbors, I find they feel the same way as I do. Disgusted. We feel like our city is being bought out by big money. And our city counsel members are not listening to us. After reading the Final Environmental Impact Statement (PETS), I am still convinced that the Best Buy project will cause too many significant traffic problems and unwanted changes for Richfield neighborhoods, now and in the future. Hence, the problem solving methods proposed in the Travel Demand Management Plan (TDMP) have not changed significantly enough or proved to be successful or solid enough for me to feel comfortable with this development. The area of most concern for me in reference to the (FEIS) is the TDMP. With only 13% of the employees considering alternative forms of transportation, and Best Buy not having a past, solid success rate of what employees have been willing to do, in reference to alternative modes of transportation, the outlook seems too uncertain to depend upon. And, reducing the number of the estimated daily trips, by employees, in the morning and afternoon peak hours by 450.750 is not enough of a traffic flow change (page 2). In conclusion, there are too many uncertainties to consider the environmental statement worthy to be complete. Most of the ideas for traffic reduction are based on the willingness of the Best Buy employees to accommodate the traffic needs. And that, along with other proposed ideas for solving traffic flow problems is not enough. Ison Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 November 16, 2000 Ms. Julie Urban, AICP City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Subject: Best Buy Campus — Final EIS Mn/DOT Review File # EIS00 -007 Northeast Quadrant of I-494 and Penn Avenue Richfield, Hennepin County Control Section 2785 Dear Ms. Urban: • •�� - 22-CaD __� The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Please note that Mn/DOT's comments contained in our September 27 and October 17, 2000 letters concerning the draft EIS are the same for this final EIS. In addition, Mn/DOT encourages the City to address the following issues: • Mn/DOT has concerns about temporary drainage during construction and respectfully requests that the City make every effort to provide for adequate drainage during construction. We would encourage the City to use the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management Practices for "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" when addressing drainage during construction. Please contact Don Berre (651- 797 -3090) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section for any questions concerning drainage issues. • Mn/DOT encourages the City to work with the developer in implementing a Travel Demand Management Plan that will help to minimize any increases in traffic that result from this development. Please direct questions concerning this issue to Wayne Norris (651 -582 -1295) of Mn/DOT's Pre- design section. Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, environmental reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to: Sherry Narusiewicz Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Please note that Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. An equal opportunity employer L 1 Feel free to contact me at (651) 582 -1771 if should have any questions. Sincerely, Um� Paul Czech Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison Copy: Pete Tulkki, Hennepin County Surveys Section Dave Zetterstrom, Hennepin County Public Works Walter H. Rockenstein H, ESQ., Faegre & Benson LLP Beth Kunkel, BRW, Incorporated Mn/DOT Division File - C.S. 2785 Mn/DOT LGL —Richfield L-11 1 1 Ii 1, (000Z "ll ilaqw,"'Ra ff4lAf,9WU'f'6!0j, FdVOjfOd I IS, BMW MI Piulz Islod 13111 XTI(all I IN, 1, "a, Idildl v ll I I 1, b m 0 A � A VI p Z t d LV 1 C sa 2 n m o cD N co (DD (D a0 3 W .�-r l< C '' 0 C. (D n G (D (D (D o -+ 0 (D ((DD 0' s-u 3 Cm . _ a � ' v ca 0 0 0. 9 m0 c CL v. o (D A (D am m ;* X03 • � cu ti 0 ? L n +� o �o- R b ti m A 0 a 0 o =�M cr (D 2 (D(� s Q h (D 5 r �..Cn (� 0 CD N (D o 3 b ►0 Q -0 � 0 ?19 (D .-- Q n 5— N tD (D 3 a' In g ~� � O cr j (Do Ul �l m c�� ?=p (D , a c (D 0 Q. b ti m A 0 a 0 o cr (D 2 s Q 5 �..Cn (� CD N (D o 3 b ►0 30 IN ?19 (D .-- Q n 5— N tD In 9 9 � O j (Do Ul �l (D n c�� n (D Q. b ti m A 0 a 0 o cr (D 2 �..Cn CD N (D o 3 b 30 IN ?19 .-- Q n 5— N tD -. 9 9 � O j (Do Ul �l d N � I� y o b o� d �I A s` I (tiJ 3� g .a) c y cr r n� ?rn x (D — ,a 3 N nt Pr 0 G 07 Q n •� CD : •� CL =r (D Q v y C DM0 0 �3o y CL (D 0 j��, CD CD M (D < 3 3 0 -- (A 3 :3 0 3 (D cn 3 mo m .a a30 -a b v o .o CD Q. 0 RL y c 0 •! cn • �� (D •� Q. STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECM, Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Ci record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cau: by the Best Buy development in Richfield. I drive that area twice-.a day. We don't need to cause anvmore xaffic problems at that intersection! - - r2r_ anym= cl a i uction of buildings in Richfield. WhY can't theybuild out in an area where there is more room � -and :Less traffic? i Name: //� ', 4,0 t DPI% �C�lm e i Street: 6u e e Apt. # 1 ,0,6 City: State.MV Zip: :52�4 3 Signature: Date: // o-v STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT! ! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official C record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cau by the Best Buy development in Richfield. l=Si%,`lSlllr�%1�7t/1.7r.: rail /13�S�i� %�� %rig / %lt7LI[��r1� .: Street: -7 Sherid M 4 L Sn Apt. # City: i C �1 t° State:_ Zip: 5'5�23 Signature: (aj1j4N1 �' CiYVr Date: 11 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 911) STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in ..Richfield. Name: ��. -u�. � � �- ,.��c�,. /��►,.,�a�� _ — Apt. # City: State.-.– Zip: Signature: .lo-. `.. /���� -�-- Date: 2 a STOP THE BEST``BUYPROJECT!!!- Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. i aireei• dK , o, , ,.�. i'r Apt. # 5 City State•o;1 -Zip: Signature: Date. / /",g 'yea (Please mail 4 Walser by Thursday, November 0') WIRM M Iii r M STOP THE BEST °B UY PROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cause by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Signature: State: Zip: S Date:1 STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT l ! !' - Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street: Al-ul -) 7 lfi� kP Apt. # City: h State: Zip: J�M 23 f Signature: Date: //- S -aa�/i (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9"*) STOP THE BESTkB, - UYPROJECM!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. lAk AA k, ,l Is '�f!!/ p /6G'j �rrR' CL }ag lge- Q1'e/ �!1 �Omooir��ei''C Aar aan4Pt�icir Sufic ri// Name: �, at Y r� '� t' a M el `'e• 1 �� o �.� S Street: 13 /S /S'* 41e. f Apt. # City: Stat . /1/ Zip:-.56f-2-3 Signature Date: P-4-00 STOP THE BESTi. UY PR OJECT - Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. �s T fi 'i"n Q f/Ci "[oh is t 0" —W4ral and piw6AI vi(ega/ { Name: Death Sr L ind Street: _6 99'x/ Pa N i; /dog; So , Apt. # City: R 6 ;--t d State: M tit Zip: S SY.Z 3 Signature: Date: 6 .t000 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9) 4 STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECTM' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street: ,',.54 f 44"c9W /m . Apt. # City: -Q�,,�:ctd /� State: —*-&. Zip: Signature: ?jh.,/A!22z6 .. g,"j Date: //-r Oa (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9`h) STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!* Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Cityl record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cause] by the Best Buy development in Richfield. ' n A m Z"s -f v r,o 'Aw .Z,v o r-..c,r 22,41- 5z- 0 VV, C r r w; Name: M it, a- M/ya i:6 �,I & Street: _7 3,* d G ✓L 1 u it & Avg :5,, Apt. # City:] I c o-4 ,0CI LC J- a State: M 4/, Zip: 5 3 &f z,3 Signature: � Date: I/- G - n m (Please m4rto Walser by Thursday, November 9`1") � STOP THE BEST BUY PR. OJE CT!!!* Here are my concerns, to be submitted as .part of the official City record; about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. T4 E 'rwo av---r wr \ ✓d, T-wA.,P-C-, • Apt. # City: State: Zip: SS Z Signature: Date: STOP THE BE&T B UY PROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. City: (o';lt •(aw State: x*.. Zip: 45-6-0423 Signature; - Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9'*) STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!'� STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!, Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Cib Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causl record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. I by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 0 Street: ,n 0 STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT ' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. rz tk ICE' S T'1? vC rf,Ox1 c,-*- �!O iyr �-S �! S C hrtA(jel KPIti �" fro y Sc�� (W- F S e A 94r ;t/V'C' G -,- 'z- E',tt 5 P�,. s9 s raP 4„ � nVIS vsAE- Name• .�,e u ......r iaiQ'O -3" 4``c T Street: 7420 ' 13TH AVE.. s• 101-. D Apt. # I Name:_ t � 72c��✓r� Karen Ann Hughes —� • Street:— ' 900 Rae Drive, Apt. #10 Apt. # 0 Richfield, MN 55423 City: 1 te• Zip: Signature: � '4" Date: 6 (Please mail,to Walser by Thursday, November 9') lei �m l kMa ' 40,4 - C&Tt n' `' "y' State: Zip: — Signature: STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!' ere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City ,cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused t the Best Buy development in Richfield. y ?"tom Jw�VL�R i N 'x- P r .cr A tD e y' Name: lq FR fZ ='- �- ""u 2 S C Street: 7 ;-0 / ©,tee G Av � �'! J D -A r"- City- : L C re 14 t C State:M&' Zip: Signature• D ate• (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9` ") STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!J STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Cil Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cau record, about the environmental / traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. by the Best Buy development in Richfield. LN N Street: �Z3 4 � Apt. # City: �.� State:��Zip: .. .. r lit Signature; Date: STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECM 41 Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be c by the Best Buy development in Richfield. d- / I IV - - / W - � I&. -- _ . -V T • " " - __ . / i (Please mail to Walser by L Name: Street: b `'} Apt. # City: TL�r, 1 State: Zip: Signature: Date: ©Q STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT!!!* Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Apt. # �;4tat Zip: 4 Date: / h. 1%�7L%I��•- November 9') 1Iame: 110 aerT /yl 4t r-l14O?p . /k[_) 2n /Ce�#--x Street: 7 a a. 7 Ar/c ,4 den u *� T. u r� Apt. # City - c., Cie. l at State:Q4/ Zip: - -6� �Q 3 Signature:�%�,� •�j Date: — 7,d D (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9`h) 1 d i = = = = _ = M = ® = M = III = = = = = M 1112111111.1111111a IIIIIN ® M M " 11117 ® MM MMMM MM ® " M STOP THE BEST BUY PR OJECM ! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causq by the Best Buy development in Richfield. City: f State: *-,� Zip: Signature. Date: 7 eo __.... (PIP/my mlyil M ®nlcar hu ++ zedmi STOP THE BESn UY PR OJE CM!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City' record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cause by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: -4� Street: yoy 5` �� o�-Y+, Apt. # city:1��c,f� State: 1,7f4 Zip: Signature: ,., %��� Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9*-) STOP THE BEST -B UY PROJECT M, Here are my concerns, to be submitted :as part of the official City record, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name:_ Street: r0 Ql L A&L 7 5 Apt. # City: Jr. tate: % Zip: Z Signature• Date: - STOP THE BEST BU.YPROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. P` W 21 1 t w a b d 1�) apl2. (-to, w, 444 m howwx) akJ 6rmb;n5 il., Name:. busrnes . Street: fo a /7 y Q.W. Apt. # City: Stater. Zip: Signature: ��!! Date:_ J - 3 -da (Please mail to Walser Thursday, Novk ..u� r 9&) 1 1 1 LJ 1 r (D N t 0 rn 's (D , ,� D Q 0) � T b a .o :moo �o D j-o had D < D3Cr ;°4 N v;3 g i3 N CL ` a=ri 5-i 2� -o cr 24 ca 4f CL _w. CD cr c3 b LT 9 O m C N n o CD < W •N 0 O (D (D r� � �l N N ` cr n N t Do V M -0 0 N a. �o d �ID o n C n �o CD •_ n 1� b w 4% v cr 7 0 M >< Q y N � ca 0:)r °o W c '3<� V a �0 �04 �3 3 M, °� Q 3 0 3 � —ti � '� 54 N =o cr 24 -� (ten • CL o ID O CD a� cu (D (D 0 3 00 `< ? 0 (D (=D � s ((DD N �• NO '+ O 7 (D N l X@ 3 zr N n lQ. Co N -a OR a. �o �(D =o 0 (D con W b 0 y M® ==" WI M M M® M M M" MI M M M! STOP THE BEST 'B UY PR OJECT ' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. City: State; Zip: _ Signature: Date: STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!' ere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City :cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused ✓ the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: F/'A.(Al W. � j5sek la Street: =f —la 4t45 S, Apt. # City: / C'N�E� D State: Zip: 5bS _23 - Si:nature:�_.. ' ... _._.Date: 111104 STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!! ", -.I STOP THE REST' UYPROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street: 2026 Sh2Jen,. Aye S. Apt. # City: /9 ti4da State: MAf Zip: 55"VA3 Signature: Date: fl-F-06 (Please mail to Walser by ws_-d November 9 ere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City :cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused ✓ the Best Buy development in[/R"ichfel(d..� / V !/ ✓ J ( tC� /`�l�l_,• l n 7 I-i-- f l5L \C Name: It-e kt Street: 3 3 3 1/i k e, .o n C14A � Apt. # City: c. S te: NA /Zip:s54 /�23 Signature: ` - t�/ y%t/ (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9`h) STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT! ! !, STOP THE BEST B UY � PROJECT.. . • Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic im acts that will be caused ere are my concerns, to be submitted as dart of the official City by the Best Buy development in Richfield. `cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused y the Best Buy development in Richfield, Zr YS S 4t y g gyg, r 'Tee .4-1 &we nV-4 -7 7`HP 1 /nii�.S? T T 'A .� f�✓i. n _ a 5- 77 --c4. S GG /!.L Af a 4"540 -- be--'W Name• Street: h�u�vtl�o etc d <' &V -,¢6 0 City: cv�tY� State: Zip: Signature: Date:, 6 STOP THE BESPBUYPROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 10 19b✓ l 6r24f / S-O AJ Street: b"L S� CS L ( (464 i4V Apt. # City: C State: IAI Zip: S-S ZT Signature: _ �•�-� Date: � ��rl -7 I STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!! re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City ;ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. 70 -1/2 St. mods from Pam to Xerxes. Heading s , Thorn. d Wa�sbm O '491 zL1) d at 70 -1/2. Upton is the.onlyxgsxeet aadhas the aly top si gt { Commuters have discovered 70-1/2 SL as their special "speedway" to and fh= /,�� � Target, the Galleria, Southdale endwther establishments to our west and to gain al O �� c `— �iiC /'r C� l+t,/ �,,J�!/ axes to 494 at Pam Best Buy's additional 7500 cars will make our stred unlivable. ''max Apt. # State: N k Zip: S Date: l(— a -D4 (Please mail to WaYer by Thursday, November 9` ") City: /r/ 0-74741Gj IS-/-00 State:- "Zip:.yJ�s Signature: Date: (Please mail to alser by Thursday, November 9'`') M® i M S M M® O M® Ili W®® M M® i =.M K2 a M® M051 US �® IM ®®® M i fi i STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT - ! STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!- Here are my concerns, to. be submitted as part of the official City mere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causes by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Dy the Best Buy development in Richfield. iS OlIn a�c,e j e do mot Wand ftie exGSS 'i�ra� -jric qoi nq �krw Our Yl� • / •4i-! l 0 I / J� �/ /Yl ��� . A7 1 �. - - a4&L &.r) Name: -0 elposled Apt. # State W Zip: Date: STOP: THE BEST B,UY PR OJECT! ! !• Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. e Signature: (Please mail to Q*6 V&-'- �� e Apt. # State: M A Zip: Date: f(' 7 -4 G �� E.dirrZ nY '� o 'tak .S`Itiay�j�i(.�sr�6L�Ti��i1 -F'e�r ah cau e,. �slroyn ,Bes't 43w %vevt'rrY'. 2�ri�rr hbvet wost soul sta as rC5 da.w-Fay.�ra.Z, No e; you 0_ft re►yon p p c yo taus Y 1Vrame: 0sz'�:. Street: 7L. -A2 ..,,�..� 3 -.� ��-. Apt.# City: State :lei' /V_ Zip: ,5_5*2� Signature: M9_! &} od Date:)]-9I,&) STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!• re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City .ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causes the Best Buy development in Richfield. u v Name: S-S M ( I w iz Street: 7 CO LI f X f�" V 7a Apt. # City: Stater Zip: �-?- Signa Date: (Pie a it to Walser by Thursday, November 9") STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!! Here are .my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cause( by the Best Buy development in Richfield, ae ac&."A Street: %,,? I- / Apt. # - City: / Stateu jWzip: g Signature: STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECM i Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City Irecord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. - -�Pa M City: . - _- fd -0'* ss*.& State: Zin:... . b y' STOP THE BAST BUYPROJECT!!! J STOP THE BES7'BUYPROJECMf Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfiel �V by the Best Buy development in Rich field. �� %_ 1- ��r...✓� � � D - a 1I .n _ .,. A . n_ y _.G. D /. • - _ .. � l `�- � _ -- / r/�-- 1.fA�s /�\,/1 i� o -..Z •,e,.,ei� coo d ��.ea -� ig.y , Name: Aelg 1/��A o y n �S�,r� Street: 63:2A? Apt. # I Street: S-' .Apt. City: State: /1W Zip: �5' -AS City: Stat . /% Zip: Signature: � � Date: //-4-00 Signa r • Date: (Pleas e��il to Walser, by Thursday, November 9`" j ' ,� (Please mail Walser by ursday, November 9'h) 7ffANK "a • Fo/t yOUA eFFo ?TS e M M M M M M M M M M M M IM M M M M M i STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!, STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!' Herb are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record;:about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused 1 b the Best Buy development in Richfield. by the Best Buy development in Richfield. /% �/% i VG:2,! C.�rvc�2�✓ 0 ifi�r OU/ lrl! o,— L1F&- )A✓ 121c41ei z4 � d Name: Pv fi �y�w _ W 70 S/�7` Apt. # Street• L9 / /,S� � J City: •�i CGS /GGC� tate: W.Z Zip: signature: Date: _ —7 ; 4d STOP THE BESTUYPROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. - - y y Name: LmA Y Street:—,/—� S— /y Agr. 5 Apt. # City: /ff" State:/% Zip: 56Y,23 Signature: Date: (Please mail to WaisJby Thusday, November Ok) Name: .�C 1 ✓ c� -�I•r / H'� � 7 7A9? Street: � F/% 6'en'0 14, Ve Apt. # city: �Z I CR I 6L.0 State: Mn) Zip: SSy� Signature: Date: 11-07— 00 STOP THE BEST BUYA ' CM!, ere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City ,.cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused I' the Best Buy development in Richfield. ,n - /9,/j,/ / l C =-/- / / -/I- D 11 II Street: 1.10 0 i / City: I_�!.'r /iii ' r4 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9#') a STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!t STOP THE BESTBUYPROJECT!!!* Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused .ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street: /11�1 Apt. # ,cex a� State• Zip: 5-S"11-2 City: p� .,3 Signature: _ ,�/ / Date: STOP THE BE &T- .B*UY PR OJECT! Here are my concerns, to be submitted -as part of the official record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be c, by the Best Buy development in Richfield. am Ye VIA c Name:_ Ctrppt! C S Apt. # City: ti -�� Stater Zip: _ Signature: d Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9"j &I leo Nov ARE SE9i ccT Af i E'wG1.'vKWr Name: 1?0 b-e 4 L Th aM eSd A/ Street: (/A ? 16 L d g &O Ack . So, Apt. # City: PLAIrl State: MAI Zip: Signature: Date: YOV, 7,, A 0 .. STOP THE BEST BUY PR OJECT! ! l Here are -my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: _ST liv% 1;1 a*- Mt, MAYA; wiotn Street:-680.5 Uyk 6wvt P v-,e. .i Apt. # City: Q T c k d State: MN Zip: 3S "Y-2 'p c t �. Signature: a w- & M, WM)n�, + 4--L— hip+. ... Date: I 1 7 OD (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 90 ) STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT! ! !' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Ci% record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causq by the Best Buy development in Richfield. - STOP THE BEST BUY PRCOJECT!! f Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causec by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: _ - AI11,� e-1 IR q/ .2F- 77- Street:j , x,161 1) -5 Apt. # City: State: Ii:) Zip: .:LT See S' a U v ture� ;^ / STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJL CT - Here are my concerns, to be submitted . as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street: Char Hanson Apt. # ' 021 Xerxes Ave S. RAMct M14 5542&2860 State: Zip: Signature: �Q l� �� :�.e��#T. �.�_ Y�-� Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9) Name:/ Street• Apt. # City: • S Zip: Signature• Date:, STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causec by the Best Buy development in Richfield. FLU Name:.dt�it7x`' �i'-/ �Y /•J Street: /732- ��/�iy0 dam. S - Apt. # City: wlewp State Zip: Signature. - Date: �*Vd (Please mai alser by Thurs'd ovember 9` ") STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT r r t -lere'are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Cit •ecord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cans( )y the Best Buy development in Richfield. I am opposed to the Best Buy Project becausO refused to explain how Name: A. heb Street P- Urtor A-,A. Sn - Apt. # City: MinneApn1in State- v433n. Zip: 5-542--- -3--, Signature• Date: /l O STOP THE BEST B UY PROJECT 111'! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Citj record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caus by the Best Buy development.in Richfield. -Z4 Name: "Ifvw ./ �., Street: Apt. # city: State: �I Zip: Signature: Date: (Please mail to Wals (kby Thursday, November 9'") STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 4 o../ 7c--.v o- 7-1 i /r .44-1-1v 1 -1v bA d ,?4 7- p" .Z , 4- sm , // !,, 7, '4C, Name:7'•1ldikas Street: 7V-?.'.- C:o G G4.Y ep, S' Apt. # City: 17+ ,_ � f < < /d State:/AA/ Zip: Signature:' t"'""" Date: STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 3© tt��il'y3 PCW / , � /d•O�GS — -Name: /�.� ;� y.r.✓C� L ynJT, Street: (Q.3 2�S— ?U52!S d(- A L) 5 0 Apt. # City: ate: /1// Zip: ; >'St1 ?> Signature: 4e� Date: 7- '01% ck�) (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November Vh,) ��%o 1 g.S� M IM) M on f •M11 M �, M =' iii M M M M M M M " M =" Will M via ® )M M �: M M Iwo M M M i STOP.THE BEST ` ST.OP THE BEST- BUY'PROJECT! r ' ;-sere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City � ere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused ([ cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. by the Best Buy development in Richfield. die s-fvd �'H�we�Q -h�4 rw•f— ci.,l,A t -c, w1p Le. r Eke tai i 11 (.,� aAAIV't'f wibl N'ame:� G�Np k SF Street: -? � XQO2 •E,':S s Apt. # �-- City: a State: Zip:% Signature: Date: j�. ti '/ �_Ya. .-,ah5. Name: LA' a.✓ Street: & a& F ll. O yvt a S XLIZ - s'� Apt. # City: Stater Zip: _ -4,q- 2 3 Date: �� Q f r r�'' ` STOP THE BEST 13 UY PR OJECT! f ! S OPT - BE,►�T UYPROJECT... � Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused ffi by the Best Buy developmentn Richfield. iby the Best Buy developments fi Richeld. i � n N� • Ms Carol Selinshi Street• �,� -022 Apt. # City: .�w..e• Zip: Signature: `D te: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9"') I • � (S_r. � � do �' B r 19 2:1k Name:A?1/9 Street: / Gd lri aa.0 --u Apt. City: 11+ ' Stater Zip -. d9 .9-; Signature: 42 r' _A,�j Date: od (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9"h) STOP THE BES7'V UYPROJECT!!! STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be .submitted as part of the official City yere are my concerns, to be submitted as .part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused fecord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. �y the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: AWa V V , /V z° I- 5FO.d? Street: �r 7�' d •"r &/e o Apt. # City: i 1 State:. Zip: 5S "x.23 Signature: Date: 00 STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!• Name: ` Jeanne Cecka 6615 Lake Shore Dr. S. Apt. 414 Street: Richfield, tvna 55423 Apt. # City: State• Zip: Signature: Date: 1- - d&) STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City ;sere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused =jecord, about the environmental /traffic-impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 'y the Best Buy development in Richfield. City: ! C.:111—'1Id52-, State%%!11 Zip: Signature: G Date: �� 4 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9'h) Vdytro, &,��J�j�a%,,,�/� / �} a �� ✓L►+ U / /LS7� t..4 � Name: • � Street: Zcam City: (2-(CIA Signature: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, S Apt. # -�20 / e: k"'11,IZip: S-5-Y23 Date: C- /+4L-, ZsxO 911) M. M M O MW M M M M M M M M M ® M STOP" THE BEST B UY PR OJECT!!! x, Here *are my concerns, to be submitC�ed as part of the official City `°cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cause by the Best Buy development in Richfield. xa. /✓•�`l� he eo.�.,er -rev g�a.�,,..� .F-�s fr�c,.� �.�✓ c,�,.� _. Name: Street: / /00 W 71, /L.P sue- Apt. # City: t StateM," Zip: S_ s9.3 Signature: Date: / / -s=2. d �liJ . aa.w.it.�.�iil' ! r •+•• • __ 11 �......... �.r N%I...v... _ .._' _ _ _ _ -_� STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT M, STOP THE BE, TIBUYPROJECT - Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cause( by the Best Buy development in Richfield. .- Here .are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmentaUtraffic impacts that will be causer: by the Best Buy development\4/,Lt- �in-Richfield. A/ lr'lARFiC VC/V�9P IG.�J J-gkr o�---LAR ,�� IL-Lrr MARL T)MIV_ l u I N ,eFIFlEifi VERY SA•jo ➢ " S,{eui.A Nor IdHAr C t z Y Cateye.it, W)," 1).1. O. a RiGifrs Gwr U/ir- D,, Name: i-tc tr L. L AP*5oaJ Street: 7Yy-y 15 -rW /4 y So Apt. # City: i 6HP�i C.43> ,p State: 144N Zip: �h� yo'Z3 Signature: �i:�c.� o�/�- Date: Ve u 6�o2ooa (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9`h) p v 6 eS r A3 cc�/ Name: n .F „ ,---/ Street: -3,-31 h Cr� � A e `fApt. # City: State:L Zip: 5,5- -_ Signatur . Date: _(P-1_easema' alrvr.J�i ,? �L„� AZ..,e...��,.�+h�._ --- . -•:. STOP THE BEST-B-UYPROJECT , ere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City . card, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused V the Best Buy development in Richfield. v F i c g 14 r•_ T '� to V PR o ? as I S A, P R 0, u rz— ? rg -C �c r✓ ! E S'i't N ca.� t z C- 8 E tir r/ i`E. N 9 Name: K z ti/ Street: %3dZ h/ /5` � hye .s; Apt. # City: i - j Stater Zip: —!55" Y-23 Signature: Date: (Pleawinall to Walser by Thursday, November 9'h) STOP THE BEST -B UY PR OJECT! ! ! STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECTM- Here are my concerns, to be. submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused sere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City m.cord, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. y the Best Buy development in Richfield. I ;?0'42j' J ,�Y�a"' -- -t-O A v4: t /" ` U/U - r_ - . r- 0^ Street: 4RO ;� S" W , 7.7 �A S3- Apt. # 5- City: ei G t- e- g t O State: M JV Zip: SS �;z Signature: � ��i. Date: `01 STOP THE -BEST B UY PR OJECT ' City: Signature: State: Lt_, Zip: C3-r-(2.3 Date: STOP THE BES'BUYPROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Ci Here are my concerns, to be submitted .as.part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be taus record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. % by the Best Buy development in Richfield. ...•!".✓w.w h i w. � % �_ �. %_ � . J %/ i A4;4 A / ♦ l / A-411 J D Name: !/.4 yd' ,1,/1Y- iLT Street: 22e) 444-, Apt. # City: -; r A01=1 State: /1' Zip: dTLZZ Signature; Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9'h) rA Street: % I'v!v � 6RIe. 's. Apt. # City: &U,� d. State: !* Zip: . Signature: , Date: j)7 m (Please marl to Walser by 4Lur sday, Novemb h) M M M M M IM i M M ,M M = Ml MM M M M MI M M M W M M M M M IM M M M M IMI M IM M M STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cau ed� by the Best Buy development in ichfield. Name: 7'irPi ci * do h Irs') 4y- Apt. # Street: d �� S _ .:City: c Stater Zip: Signature: Date: J � STOP THE BEST BUYP.ROJECT ' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cause( by the Best Buy development in Richfield. L. V Name: .,S m J a v 6 -'s k- , Street: Q k"t� e Apt. # City: State; A/ Zip: Signature: -Date: -� i j STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT! 1 - STOP THE BEST B UY PROJECT.. Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official record; about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cau by the Best Buy development in Richfield. by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: L t Y � �7 C. 0 Y n ri c i �- amt: Street: %3014 � q,� � L �- � Apt. # Street: '%�/5 / "� � �.o Apt. # �p �- i� �4 ' City: PC State.>;k v Zip: 6'� 3 City:. 1 �:l �l:_, %�c'� Statevix,'.4`_ Zip: � � � .u' .Q'^' Signature: :��^ -- �l'�;` { �1-� Date: �ignature: Date: /� r'i �0d (Please ma• to Walser by Thursday, November 9` ") (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, No tuber. 9'h j Z.4-. STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECM J STOP THE BEST B UY PROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Cit Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cause record,=about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. I by the Best Buy development in Richfield. w Street: City: State: .Zip:. ty� Signature• e P. Date: (- - o w r " e• .-v._ > am - Street• Arlenelpielman Apt. # 6535 Newton Ave s City: Ivr=OapoUs, MN 55423.1117 Zip: Signature: Date: 11 �~[• o a STOP THE° &EST BUYPROJECT!!! iST_OP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by I e B st Buy development in Richfield. V 0) e , - .6 • - - ^'- /7 - Street: -) ;!.3 3 i` L eT Apt. # City: p State: M >� Zip: SS ' 2.3 c-l. ���2 Date: Signature: v� (Please mail to Walser by Thursday,l�kember 9'h) 7h er 7,h 2 Lj ST/` {er—e 41.wa y s Co Ale' J re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City :ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: Street: Apt. # City: State; Zip:.s'S —�CoZ 3 Signature• Date: /i o0 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9'h) M �► M MM M MM i MM M MI MM M M M "� ®' M ® W" ® ill M No, M IM STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. i n t Gr11U �p SUUE— F3�Fjr�lC J"ArM l N11�2 illt?� /Onl SUC s `Ut IF T-RIS oROSEC7 Ii W[L1 8� �"�KC r-cn vv.v. rZ' 7`u R N A- c�',�, I uxtt w t-v��: rX2i vL- Name: PeTP lu ia- 'Co a ve 3 70 711*-r Street: 6qg L_b SA 04t. so Apt. # City: FFr L 771 State: A) Zip: S5�3 '• Date: Iy0 U-7 . CI _ Signature. _ STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT! ff.G Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Ci record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be taus by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Z3est (Ju y wool d cause. tao muchlrjifiPiC. �onges ovr i�v or�r you �ariif r�/y o� people to fake: bees . There, +ve e, o� y C dice, WduJd be. is -soje ew acs ake. S o CK's rom o rna� W);;Ch we. CIO M0 wan ", f e. ra is on i Tho M45 Ave ; •ar e-s-,"L of a »29 Ave-, Name: 9.,Q 7'V'1yt '7 Street: _�rl%d_ /Y),4,5 A Y'F Apt. # City: G D State., /) Zip: Signature: Date:% m!8' -00 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9f) STOP •THE BES B UY PR OJECT , lere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City :cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused I the Best Buy development in Richfield. I i�(1,, / t� iiv� Q tl,r' /� '"�v� Ivow Mw4-Ax. �,r/�1•vyAmoI'M -2 � vvU erX' � r �•o 0 3~ rff ls e4? E/• r I-Wj*,6 s w,l av rZ, ts x Name: Street: G 3 /3' //v VA ;OL 0 f _ 441e S Apt. # jCity: /fI C-14 r4% State:/'GN) Zip: Signature: �' Date_ STOP THE BESTV UYPROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causec by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name:- .,, gam. b Roy A 0vxhmd Street:_ 72HIMhAves Apt. # Mlnnegoft MN 554233350 City: ,.tate: Zip: Signature: d`t,Q Q,c z Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9"') STOP THE BEST PUYPROJECM! STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!- Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cause by the Best Buy development in Richfield. lr� MY,.- i Street: 743 5 Po, � Ore, /S Apt. # 0/ City: Stater Zip: sJT Signature• Date: / 00 (Please mail t Walser b Thursday,' N�oi,�m`t e 9'�) �+.i o-?, o� z,- ,�0� .Drr►r a ie. arc, t ryff"A a- ci�c�,', a o , PZ STyUP lHYBH5rrffUYPRUJECfi?7 -Bre are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City d cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. ,i AOn AGPt1�5ti TNT f3CST 8 vy DgU`L c?rw.:..r,- — ,4ds°" OF _iz� S t o�N-r i !k � STre� E7S n) D : o .v Street: 13n 5 C) H k L-4,•+ 4 J J Apt. # City: i t-5 State: N Zip: 5Y Signature: Date: 11 -4 -2000 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9` ") Y. Street: (q 3 ci F 1b a `- 4 V O Apt. # City: 2 � r, i o f State: /A A% Zip: 5r O3 Signature: Date: J 6 STOP THE BEST... BUYPROJECT �!! re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City lord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Lichfield. �Ry t�P��� .�-�.. lD� '- "1"nt�lla,rri... N�1 J �,� c•.'nl� O zMtt T11 Street: "13 0 q �( �Od 4.;. ' - .r __ ;�,pt. # Cit3 a s• Stater Zip: $ 23 Signature: Date: 1 l 5" 60 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9161) IM M M M M IM M M M M M M MIMI" r M man III III ��= IM IM M IMI M M STOP THE BEST* `BUYPROJECTM, Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name : - Street• lv ZZ Apt. # City: State: Zip- _.._..__Signature:_.__ _. _....... Date: /f 41,11-j STOP THE BEST B UY PROJECT.!!* ere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City ,cord; about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cause( I the Best Buy development in Richfield. ee Name: • t/j P f/ Street: Da D d pt. # City: r • L% State-'& Zip: .S�`S"r ,ZZ Signature• Date: STOP THE BESTBUYPROJECT -1. - STOP THE BESTrBUYPROJECT!!!- Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City] record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cause by the Best Buy development in Richfield. J/ v Name : - ; L %t N h Street: Apt. # City: it O-A P�'i L �.-Z. a State:/! Zip: Signature: - Date: 11— /F a (Please mai to Walser by Thursday, November 9'h) ^1 Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causec by the Best Buy development in Richfield. _ wl ;,L. _�W AM955 /X-'EF ,( ) 17`3 711E uu—'06?- {j.� l�l�' 5�,y7 GIT crr- tUlt1, 5 .5hf0 t/OTi E D ®tA`rA,5 j3 - lam Name: <-- 4, t; --Z- k M4 ' Street: 4t Apt. # City: t ( - L State:-&A Zip:.S•'SV7/3 Signature: Date: !/' '-do (Please mail to Walser by sday, November 9`4) STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT , : STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT , Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that wil.l..be. caused : record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. by the Best Buy development in Richfield. qzX 04-Mo t,06$DN SJfoOi MS We,-(- Serif Y AWAY Fo&,4< ACW- N-E'6d ST RES /At aRMeS r of ifg F- laa"Ail �9yf /y'rf- oOSLeTiy,,J 19 eeN &6srea Acc. h4Y flows, i4x IL i., "j7' 'P. _4 iJ. - a e .!T IS AMU, AST evY_W)LL ei- I-SAr6 /4 S- XldtAek.£vEU wNra�i2eoes�� Name:/ /e �� Al' L.Q, ,' TZ v Street: 4,r6 o Woe D L, kp n w Apt. # 3 /0 City: /? c 1�i` / v( State: Ny 7 Zip: 5"S3�a•3 Signature:,, ` Date: %mod ._, ...._.l.D lnAean- rn4iiJ�.liT%islon� ' .J'.1 .a _ a. a�! �.�, -� ..' �r�• 1...__,. ..._. .._.._.._._... STOP THE BEST BUY PR OJE CT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be c, by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street: (iZ ! J �'r' r��p 5 Apt. # City: A C Oi 1�'� ! G' State: AOO` Zip: –S I, -V-- -3 Signature: --0 Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 91') ALL ;EAAY AMFEsS Dvf- r0 ON LMlO/ "Of eOEA7r4, Name: �7-o l4 ! Et3E c, RNs Street: gad 9 tii ye4,ou , 'd ✓,- .So> Apt. # City: $GOO/+s/ Td Stater/ Zip: Nt Signature: Date: It •S -ez STOP THE BES-- T--'.,B UY PR OJECT! ! !' re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City ,ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in- Richfield. City: &Lwjw jd Stater Zip: — Signature: M6AA6 &-Ea " Date: t (Please mail to Walser by Yhursday, November 9`h) M MI IM M M IM - M ilk 'M M M M M M M M M M M ��lc r n N 1 CD i C:r 0 4° c� A I CD (D CD j _ 6 < 3 I �< o c i to cr CA 1�i Z! 3 (� n j c OD = FD CL I O� E� �� LV Q CD a A� m (6 A n N C •- �. coo CL CD -,( t z av y CLsv y i� am �, @ cr° 0 03 ;� x.03 b ca ��� M< �0 • rn < m < v3-, i fi oocn = o W ; a (D r cn cr 0 � � 3 ° {� N N ' ca v°,i a 3 o O: d 3 o O `D o _ O ' 0 �e M �J ° n '� � O i1J ' � c C7 •� t •` � •� Q Q. STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT , STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City :re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused ,,ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. the Best Buy development in Richfield. ,y T 71} � L'4 a>+ �S K�a'ta Yaa �S -'f 9�f nn �-� ' " �i GronuIhed 4 - -. u. yst Ci,6d►, '.Lt ya An au a&Ie44 db 4,. L o/"a &_*f- eh -,4%,0 �t .__ — if r,, n� �L rl.o „ h a.L t S h. ,rr4 W C�vu.+'e e. -I- Street.-'Lorraine Stevenson Apt. # 7614 Aldrich Ave 9 City : — Minneapolis, MM 55423 -3961 ite2 Zip: Signature: Date: (Please mail to Walser d , JE 7� t7STTh RC ` G5o� d % -S R�IER GD � r.L Y CcDaUN�¢4��Gr 7 HoAuT NR zt oF v . • r Vk 7!40 /•tsr e:,V To715 RN D 0+4 Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Ci� record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cauE by the Best Buy development in Richfield. ) I Name: Z le!"cs Street: 4. Signature: 0,514 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9"-) —Apt. # Zip: Date./”— � 6 6 Fi1i VI %p17..rpwf' � Y ,. Name: �071Ka P'05 rCfz i / -' Street: i/97 S � ieffan Apt. # t� City: State: A/t/ Zip: STOP THE BEST .B UY PR OJECT ' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. N Signature: A0112: (Please mail to Walser by f-W 5 Apt. # _ Stater Zip: �� Date: T—T—�-�� November 91") M M M IMI MI M M M MIMI M fM M M IMII M M M M rm d � ICI A b s � N b � n A � a �F_i �4 A o � (� o Po r NI IZ d gw a v - 0 co l< 0(D O � (D ° a 0 3 4 n A i O y nrn 0 in 0- -00-, o 3 3 a � °cD j a '+ N C: i u 3 M °°. I n. 3 N I A �(D f� o cy- oR y -. c n •"% cr 2 `l n (D O Q� y n �.0 3 p .+ n 3aly c (<D (D ^I O a m m < 3 o.�N Z<o 3 O p t 14 �g (D 6 wN (D a ;o • @ 3 y �� m c j a •C Q3. N -0 b I v :E (D (D (?, o CD y , CL •— `� S _S. (D r� ? OR m O1 Q (DW� o ' 0 3 uo.�+`G 0 y (D Q 3 M (D< 3 ° �• c M ^'J v=j Loi CO 3 (a 0 5 p. 3 N � O � a c O cr �l (D N = n (D so m CD W y W CD CD O 5-0, % 0 c % ° 7 CL (D 0 M < _ (D < sn $ O O (D ((D \ Ej, N co ;u ;.,:p3 c i u r B4 CD Ci a 0 cn S O. 2, 0 i �C CD_o CD o �' y CD R ►r r d � ICI A b s � N b � n A � a �F_i �4 A o � (� o Po r NI IZ d gw a v - 0 co l< 0(D O � (D ° a 0 3 4 n A i O y nrn 0 in 0- -00-, o 3 3 a � °cD j a '+ N C: i u 3 M °°. I n. 3 N I A �(D f� o cy- oR y -. c n •"% cr 2 `l n (D O Q� y n �.0 3 p .+ n 3aly c (<D (D ^I O a m m < 3 o.�N Z<o 3 O p t 14 �g (D 6 wN (D a ;o • @ 3 y �� m c j a •C Q3. N -0 b I v :E (D (D (?, o CD y , CL •— `� S _S. (D r� ? OR m O1 Q (DW� o ' 0 3 uo.�+`G 0 y (D Q 3 M (D< 3 ° �• c M ^'J v=j Loi CO 3 (a 0 5 p. 3 N � O � a c O cr �l (D N = n (D so m CD W y W CD CD O 5-0, % 0 c % ° 7 CL (D 0 M < _ (D < sn $ O O (D ((D \ Ej, N co ;u ;.,:p3 c i u r B4 CD Ci a 0 cn S O. 2, 0 i �C CD_o CD o �' y CD a v - 0 co l< 0(D O � (D ° a 0 3 4 n A i O y nrn 0 in 0- -00-, o 3 3 a � °cD j a '+ N C: i u 3 M °°. I n. 3 N I A �(D f� o cy- oR y -. c n •"% cr 2 `l n (D O Q� y n �.0 3 p .+ n 3aly c (<D (D ^I O a m m < 3 o.�N Z<o 3 O p t 14 �g (D 6 wN (D a ;o • @ 3 y �� m c j a •C Q3. N -0 b I v :E (D (D (?, o CD y , CL •— `� S _S. (D r� ? OR m O1 Q (DW� o ' 0 3 uo.�+`G 0 y (D Q 3 M (D< 3 ° �• c M ^'J v=j Loi CO 3 (a 0 5 p. 3 N � O � a c O cr �l (D N = n (D so m CD W y W CD CD O 5-0, % 0 c % ° 7 CL (D 0 M < _ (D < sn $ O O (D ((D \ Ej, N co ;u ;.,:p3 c i u r B4 CD Ci a 0 cn S O. 2, 0 i �C CD_o CD o �' y CD N = n (D so m CD W y W CD CD O 5-0, % 0 c % ° 7 CL (D 0 M < _ (D < sn $ O O (D ((D \ Ej, N co ;u ;.,:p3 c i u r B4 CD Ci a 0 cn S O. 2, 0 i �C CD_o CD o �' y CD .STOP ! THE- BEST .R. -UY PR OJECM Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be c by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 1r,,M Cn,uct --. M" "B �� � c l,- ,t�dT�oN Ob�d 619Z ai g_�Ik Name: Lw.pce -Alz a. Street: 7 `D u Low a.,v 3 Apt. # City: ?/ L State•Mw Zip: r Signature• Date• & a STOP THE BEST BUY PR OJECT! ! STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT ' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. .} T.f=- �..= �....� N e: C A- R d L- 1 L c) c 14- c�d�`P�'�t�' Street: .b ;t45` G. D ( AN A V C . S , Apt. # City: State•_ Zip: -'!r.S L f ,:� 3 Date• 11 7/ x STOP THE BEST°BUYPROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Cit Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caus record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Bu development in Richfield. by the Best Buy de elo ment,in Ri "ield. ' Ale! n �,o��ti ,--Wit- cutiYo ws a-0117 o a 'c s • i YA� ► e 1 J' i�' ��'i7T��'. 7o IYI zh a ( [L4-h p✓1 w a,rit a l I time �e -w CGr r . 5 or ' 0 L-k s-t-� ,s ! Name: l t,4-c � Lok c and 6yummar Street: ?.131 Apt. # ' City: PLWP" State: Zip: Signature: (Please mafj Date: 111- --Q _ Apt. # Zip: �3 ,�t l0? Date: X (Please mail to by Thursday, November 06) III W W M M M M " M M M M M M '� = m an MM M W M" MM M M r STOP THE BES�''BUYPROJECT!!! STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!- Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City 'sere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. ?y the Best Buy development in Richfield. Ids Name: - L-111 — n L -cam •3A—% Street: `7 2.-`3 r2-o +�� Apt. # City: State: Zip: Date_ L '7 va v O STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT , 'The dcuclrap�.�.,f rs 4vo �arg�&— for th< area. JL Here are my concerns, tore submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Bur development in Richfield. I'm 4nf11• clac'jAd to „ �inG .n a cif u7 tre -il+c ao�Kal hat so bf-ftc rc8urUreJrect'.f �'i�'vslce df &4C Pt 0a . L.etS ;IX ffw LLQ+L / /.,.,rlalc_ IOO�S 0 SO Gad f °j 1�� J+ clrn� Q�ts bc�,,,esS, GJko 5 .me: M Ur Lt `Rrr clt -e v heX� U Street: 9 (e L S ' U u Q vy. ' Se Apt. # City: 1 ; � State:, Zip: 54)-1 Signature: Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9' ") Name: lj Street: -7 1 Apt. # City: State: � Zip: Signature.: tt —W P, z Date: lG DO_. STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJE CT!!! ,re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City ;ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causec the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: I O (� �i 1� �' -A qLQ Jl Street: 7O% 1 7-N 0 A-�t .S _Apt. # City: rl [ C H (t✓L State•.N/� Zip: C Signature• Date: j N O (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9'*) STOP THE BEST BUY PR OJECM ! STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT! ! f' Here ere .my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record., about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 1by the Best Buy development in Richfield. t9gfV! yijS_/ �WA�s, �Lli/3A�iT"tv�l�otiG�/�rs7wo6'�. %� STOP.,. THE BEST Boll Y PR OJECT! ! !' I Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: Street: Apt. # City: State: Zip: Z _ 2., Signature: Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9"'') 81610 A? , :gt s 171A.r71 7 Name, -- - r4...H ¢ 17 m Po 74,se %7`a g. Zd, A-;�_ Street• • I / Y5- i —' / u E City: k(' ` �lG/ State: &?A Zip: 5- �5-S -a g Signature: - � Date: STOP THE BEST BUY PR OJECTM re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City .ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. The environmental and traffic will cause all kinds of serious troubles that the City is not addresing The City is more coneerned about Best By than its residents. TIF for Best By is wrong. Best Buy should not be in Richfiedl. Name: StVeA. West 76th Street Apt. # Ricdield MN 5 Ity: State: Zip: Signature: Date: I �- 7 ed (Please mail to Wals sday, November 9'h') r IM M i l k OM M ; I I I i t l IM M " 11 Ili r M MI M M M E= . §= = = 111111M M M M M M M NIIIIIIIIIII I" M M M M STOP THE RW B UY PR OJE CT!!!'! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmentat/traffic impacts that will be cause , by the Best Buy development in Richfield. /.��/1'I/'1%i1/i1,E�i!,��� -GG t4•.. � �.... ,.^�'�1 �cA°� ���:�" �- fgr.�,,g 1,:.f "4 N Street:(/ e0M. S_- Apt. # City: State"j�� Zip: �5 Signature: Date: 7 STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECTM' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best- Buy- development in Richfield. n. :- .a,a., c..vtaLcvzes (,von Y duyeUer(iC.ur/Gr`/ i? /Cr�fii�t'to_ T/fey `C 710*7 lei -d4a7-. dsiOtrTsf C�icti//1JtCS 0"7- v.= 1:icM�C4U. i,✓ILL +'My /I�i�N CT/focj� c' ) '' Name:- tyn a 2Y1 "VA4, j a Street: 7A33 ailJ�wn am ..$o Apt. # City: State :JZ_ Zip: 3't! A 3 Signature: ©g o Date: /1— 6, 8 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9) STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT * Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: Street: 7561 Col o•-� s �� e . So Apt. # City: Iz State:/v// Zip: Signature:u, � Date. // Q 1� 1�� • Co oa -5�040 0,01e pot. (04 a su+ o..6n.4 6 • STOP THE BEST PUY ZOJECT!!!• 7'Qy 13vetdozi� 68fbrnes vn.h,e.�e, -cFo�y��c„� L,•�i,�- Here are m concerns, to be submitted"as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causes 'by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Gt'Qfl UA, Q o do z Street:. 764-4 Ar�6 /$---I Apt. # City: kL State:11IN Zip: 55'41�-'3 Signature: Date: t o v (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9d`) 756L T,h/E ��YOIT F' ciTY 49a O--1'4 T-a 57,9141 STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT! ! ! o,c �: c /,�F� E <p Fo/! 7W,61"/? "S, 6,V/9L , ,¢o: C-- ¢ rs ` Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield.�isTE,v T C %T %zCys Name: .T6.g Street: g f ✓f-.2, Gt/ - 7.'A"—"P-5_7- _ Apt. # City: �iG/!F�'ELD State:. Zip: 6-54..7- 3 .,2 ; J? D t • 1� rt00 Signature. 2xJ a e. STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT ' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street: a C c)r o� a �� �12 Apt. # 1/1 U City: i r= t Ca..{ Stater Zip:. � Signature: Date: J 1 a (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9'h) STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!!- -lere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused py the Best Buy development in Richfield. 0&4--100.5 7—/o ,. moo�/.� -L, a� �s e5 1 Name:_ PETER SMITH Street: 7314 12TH AVE S Apt. # RICHFIELD, MN 55423 City: Zip: Signature: .�' ,/ GJ7l Date: /! �. D e STOP THE BES7'+BUYPROJECT!!!' ere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City kord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. - r,,?" ar.,.y a �c.'� r v •e qD � �- odo• r t� e� fodi Y e� s'< i-- f' e I' '� act- Name: �. C'. Street: 5�.� 8 �c:�r �•� off' , _Apt: #-- ----�. Zip: -� Date: l� T I (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9'h) M.M ® M 4 d = M M M M M M M M M M M M STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT! ! f* Here are my concerns, to=b"ubmitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECM!, ere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City 4cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused ! y the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street: ��2� " ,A ar 4 h -Ads, &0 - __ Apt. # � City: 91 C h a State AJ Zip: • -- ........� 2 —.. _ _.Ilo.tn• LL/J, Z.,- STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!! Name: r4 e- f/ _ P f; R r S a Street: to --3 7-- So . Apt. # City: State Signature: Date: STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!- Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City Mere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused ty record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. �y the Best Buy development in Richfield. AV Street: 1,7,0 / 1 .. Aptf # City: Stater Zip: `71 Signature• Date: / o (Please m it to Walser by 1 hursd4, "November 9'h) s I? Streev. -- 6 C?-,) / '. I ) J, Apt. # City: / Stater, Zip: 675 Signatur . Date:j� (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9*) STOW THE BEST B UY PROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. v ee f Name: Z-:772 enirZ o Street. r•rr v'�. Apt. # City: io l Stater Zip: Signature: STOP THE BE -, UYPROJECT!!C M Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street: Apt. # City: • j C.9 I'1 P—IQn State: Zip: Signature: 4�4'L � Date:.-Z/--, �-. (Please mail to Walser- byThzasday, November 9' ") STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECTM' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. — /2�j ix r Street: X10 I W 07 1 Apt. # City: State Zip: 5S'I A - Signature: Date: STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!! are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City rd, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused ie Be Quy development in Richfiel . n A n Name: fro .� ,; n q�_, r If Street: ' Apt. # City: A �� c` Stater Zip: SSy2-3 Signature: Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9` -) r r Ir rl I� w r r r llr llr � � r Ilr llr � rr r STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT ' STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECM !• Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City ere are my concerns, to be -submitted as part -of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused `cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. V the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name:—b4, 1. o A ;T d,4 ir/S d-/ Street:- ?91 �7 A 44,) jl © J_e Apt. # - = �- City: S te: IIA-1 Zip: S 1 Signature: Date: UD -tly a'' Name: Pu c cr'j- aww I ` Lt_w Street: toam A Lx- !-s, Apt. # n. City: ?.l C.V+ qAj State:bl'1 ✓1 Signature: 'inAIJ Zip: ss 2z Date: i 00 STOP THE .BES B UY PROJECT!!::. ►S'TOP THE BEST B UY.PROJECT , Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. /1R/�pF. v EJt►NQ BC- l`3W 3149 " c>; 0IWP_ UV w aiL. 14143 M AC of l .It 9 Name: 0 &*j► L2 i)L.r-2 d x IIr4` . Street: !I vo i - i!r Ave. 16 Apt. # City: ,etCF/r_Lj) State: 00 Zip: Signature: /c :.._.ri L4)A F�v,.ul�Q Date: ll -lam -vaoo (Please mail to Walser by Thursday)), November 9'h) a Aa ttTT- A�As FT. Mary as 7v +a bolmo R l"DjM 9 OWL POO; re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City .Ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. 1?� /N'/ 770AI 6F " 1961elL?' Name: ..r,.. ,... Kevin b'innean Street: ��,�/,�/- 7208 Park Ave. _ Apt. # EF-4 xt Meta, mnv essza..3zaz____J' o City: orate: ,Gip: {i r Signatu � � Date: (Please mail to YWalsq*"Thursday, November 9'4) CORN° TOI'• THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!! STOP THE BES�`'BUYPROJE .� CT.. . d Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. y the Best Buy development in Richfield. u�crXmew �s ITAFF/ C �4 (n Dir17ytc�vifG i r°A'Olf .17 - A'7'—"ALra di, r1 62/,1rr Al �i► J:..../�•i'.n- r�.r-- ....7;_ ._�1.. State:�l • • a�uaaua�• �� PI email to'Walser' by Thursday, November 9'h' •'.��' drf�l!/i'1,. SAS{ � c Date: -9y>& s, a:r$ L T �: .., Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 4: Street: l z City: -Ze Signature: (Please mail to Apt. # -� Stater Zip: ,5' Date: n er 9h) ,. Name: Street: Helen Stewart Apt. # City; 7600 Sheridan Ave Sm Ricfcefd MN 55423 _ Zip: Signature:t3jl,�*",e� -- - Date: STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECTM, re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City ;ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. 7vU -f'fic cor- ryes'�'�ov, 8usi Loss 6A g&54CY a ,4,d -cam PPIL I - - - - Name: E Ir o s s e h V Street: o o B r a. S Apt. # City: State: /'�h , Zip: y`S -f�a3 Signature: Date: 11-6 -d 0 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 911) M G M r M M r M M M M M M M MIMI M M M M M 96316= M to M M M M M M r r Ml M M III STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!- STOP THE BEST J3UYPROJECT , Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City Jere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfiel , „ iy the Best Buy development in Richfield. !�e .�.H. ��� Sd o C3. /� e . l�z��C I �4 :+C •�, Q...,.�.�C rc.�,r sir Street: WA A 4A zg ` re . Apt. # -- — City:_A�4�=w -it, . State: Zip: 4�� L/2 3 Signature: .- Date_ STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT *, Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street: 63,Q J P V S �y i^t! A-yo_o. 9t)' -- City: R)zkrthao State: Zip: S�23 Signature: Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November Yk. i ham b"n a- )� u4.,,f —�-j apt= fly U Street: d / Apt. # j City: _ State:_/�Ai_ Zip: Ss'S�r3 I Signature: Date: 11141.- STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!!, re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City .ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. ame: City: (Please mail to Walser November 9'h ) —Apt. # Zip: , JI STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!1 Here are my concerns,. to be submitted as part of the official C, record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cO by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 'i Name: Ms. Lia.Ozols, Street: 20124.6 Apt. # Minnedpolis, M[;T 35423,,'2104 City: State: Zip: PROJECT! Here are 'my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield, F,j.1 1 -07AL for ACr-- rf?AFFI6 Corj6e5)te3ry �NC�'rlMk i3uSiN�SSLs - - Name:_j A M r S V G r? P C Street:' 401 dun AVE S-01 Apt. # City: a 1 C.N,,.Fl a L-n Stater_ Zip: !'G47-1- Signature: l�t� -�.?� �..��.. e___ Date: I I% PROJECT!!!* Dre are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name': Name: 5 l Street: 7-5,v,r- Q,liv `.A S,p Apt. # Street: G U, 4 0 e 'b `' Apt. # AU City: Z.� 1A. Z/ State: Zip: �'S"y 3 City: 1 State• fl Zip: &7o�& Signature: Signature: Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thur ay, November 9"-) (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 91") ens r r r ear � r� r r® r r� r Ir sir rr r it r STOP - THE BEST B UY PR OJECT ,! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Ci record, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be cau: by the Best Buy development in Richfield. :r4 I's ra�Ut any( dS.Cu loos + cies"Ixak " area Qsd 'io -1kwk_4j,A* a lest' Oia�'s 5Z7R will ro'E- ti. nlrocJ. nil#r- CAAARcjeJ S4U S Q4 - � , S wt VJVU ,.tee, ✓e n�1(u d Name: _"si- A; � 16z- Street: 713 1(e 4 g-AA) a hy, S • Apt. # City: P t r_ FdP F-+4 State: mN Zip: SV41_. Signature:,, &--126F Date: « 8 STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official C record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caul by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Q Street: %�, 31 J, � _ Apt. # City: State. Zip: e5�_73 Signature: Date:1 (Please mail to Walser by ���ber 9 ` "j STOP THE BEST BUY PROJEC?!!!, Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 2). (1 n- lora<K3rt�Yrl avow iJE�c�'L_?h �(1Ll lri4r�rt�r a_�-l�rr - 6 0 `pow month ao Q►� ��,, Name: e, rSrrrck4YY)aYI Street: 44 aAax AQf_ So Apt. # L4 i_ Cityi'"R 1. (I �n ;t G fd . State )O Zip: 5 S q-,Z3 Signature:.Q��Q ! y Jr h9 e" Date: 40 r STOP THE BEST BUY_PROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to a submitted as pa_&'OfMVIofficial City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused Mthe Best Buy development in Richfield.��`"-'°�^•-�' 3 : 3 a 0>l. r --- (�.,,, Name: ��/ -v - -- ` A • .D _ ...�H _ � � e � Street: City: J '4 State: M), Zip: n� Sign tore: Date: D0 A G 16 .fir 7yJ S r'! it c/ a R i ii p .�- (Ple mail to Wa er by ursiiaay, Novem STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!' STOP THE BEST•BUYPROJECT!!!• Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City lere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused 9cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. dddt' °n�i ���� the Best Buy development in Richfield. .�.. /�rrnG �U` °1 `.f� �: a/s �l Sj'�.r� mo lam° /�O0' J� ' a /e a/ lam' / (� ) �� > f� Adr ;-s dr/ivr /ea ded SIfGL/ �Q.17111LL�/`71037�. �- `� ©C/�, /il�� / /�iie,+ / /I�J�OQIQ� /P ('D/7/lPIT1Yi2 %D 7' /✓ C71)% Q / /��Jp°. L/.5C'�7J A A + ¢ � /_/ � / n �.i ell / / r /•owi .o.?Liea /dhoy, & 4 5rd +�'I�X Frs QXb� Name: 9< l5or Street: S 4 City: /� e e r State Zip: s- - Signature: ,A —•-C� i�: � s;eo/ J _ Date: 4 .� oe Street: o't l A 1 U,:;:<= X77-7' �1 �'7 Apt. # // City:, 12� i O, g fi PIEE� (-O State: Qh tL,, Zip: Signature: ��.-'�� ^�.c�✓r_ Date: <Q STOP THE BES'TBUYPROJECT!!!� j STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City ere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused ecord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the B st Buy d�er pt.j�R1c�hf Id.- a'3�Q 6�� � ry the Best Buy development in Richfield. .fin ?/ A4 Street:_ % 3 / 7 14 [/Z Apt. # City: / C14!Lh Stater Zip: Signature• Date: 7--4 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, wovember 911) Street: '7& 3 - / "01 c. y Apt. W City: State:? Zip: �/ �, /� Signature: Date: —�Z � !r'd (Please mail to WalseUy Thursday, November 96) M M M ® M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ' M lid M M IMI M M M IMI M � M M 0 M M M 'STOP: THE BEST � B UY PR OJECT! 1 ! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official I record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be ca by the Best Buy development in Richfield. -('/, P. Apt. # State :61jel[ Zip: )13 Date: P STOP THE BEST -B UY PR OJECT! r ' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in-R. Street: I fQ I E I i t s- " AVmPt Apt. # City: ?- LL State: U.�j Zip: !;-rq2=3 Signature: Date• 1 l - � -- c� o (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9`4) STOP THE BEST B UY PROJECT M' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street-(,. $1,5 zy,� 0 h; oA(IqyP..So P Apt. # City:_ f r4 -f e /,/ Stater Zip: S5t �3 Signature: Date: 11—k'-00 STOP THE BEST BUY PR OJE CT!!!* re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City *rd, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. U Name: 4 �Z,6t r40E 4 &C Street: 921 fi r)GE*S APvr- Apt. # City: ; -P&Igl State: Zip: Signature: f",O, I.GC, Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9' ") STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!!. STOP THE BEST BUYP.ROJECTM- sre are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City Here are my concerns, to be submitted as of the official City cord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 0 n 6- Street: 7! j 7--t I SMY X VC-. S0 City City: N �Y E L D State: Zip: S S 2- 3 Signg Signature; Date: LL ob - 10 fp xl-t Apt. # A Statedv 5-? Zip: 57 L4- Date: J/ _—C? STOP. THE BEST B UY PROJECT! + STOP THE BEST B UY PROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, fo be submitted as part of the official Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be call record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. by the Best Buy development in Richfield. �- -,— ► fy3S ?5 ot_ PDoGf�� 71- 7,5 C wltrza RM Street: City: State: Zip: Signature: Date:_' (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9`4) C LCC K117AI td- W L /L-. �/C V - Z s .-*l , fry AaE-4 � - / Name:_ P I) u Z..., N t. L's W Street: a - c5 , Apt. # City: PccO Fr FILO'l State Zip: Signature Date: v (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9") r M IMI yr M IMI M II M MI M I M M r M w M s STOP THE BESf:f UY PROJECT! 1 t Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Ci record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cau: by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: Street: '7.j Z 1— :.7>�—� �.�>. Apt. # City:��� .J-�. - ,t� StatrO o✓ Zip: _. j --/ Signature STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECTr!1 Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be causi, by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: &(994-- Z idag Street: Apt. # City: State-.A W Zip: 4 3� Signature: k&440 Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 0) STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT! ! ' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in- Richfield. cev��* e:�, �& 51 �rIZ4 Ar , - 5:�21f er r, 0', #Ie i/ - j _ � . it / I_ X.1-0 w / T4 1, A_ 7 :e \ ' , t .. C-+, aCLV( -rc 6'�./��8us,5.ers . Ttils �s s:►�.Pyk�x�' Name• �JJr l'1"a�- �c,f.w•" /c%aq Street: �/lToa1' • �• Apt. # City: If i c��`�f'GI State: Owdzip: 5T Signature: Date: STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECTI ! - Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy develop ent in Richfield. ez^ oun rjae 2 ) 04e / aalaeo4 fad &A Name: ( Street: 4:�* City: ° Signature: _ (Please mail to -0 nkl Apt. # Zip: S �} 3 Date: I/lIZ140 STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!!* Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be cause by the Best Buy development in Richfield. . 37, x Name 'D NA ]-7 C'� bE FZ N a L. P•'*, street: VI-Ft Apt. # City: t C 14 F l? t L- D State: 23 Zip: _ .S' - ..._0i 7eo Date: 116 oa STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. ame: � J Ci'T , rlr.. 'PPf'• •• Apt. # GAIL E. AN: 7421 LYHDALE DERSON AVE. S. 4 State Zip: RICHFIELD, MH 55423 Signature: ' ,.� «:•� .�a- - ^- Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 911) STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Apt. # City: State: Zip: Signature: _ _ Date: STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!' ;re are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City .,ord, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused the Best Buy development in Richfield. 3 Stree£ Apt. # City d/ State: 44 f `Lip: Signature: Date: (Please tl to Wals by Thurs ay, November 9`") . M® M M M M M Ml M M M M M Ml M fifl M M STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECTM' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Street: 9 ee G /�;y /IVt' Apt. # e ( / City: r Z State: 41 Zip: Signature: V Date: (Please mail to Walser y Thursday, November 9"') '°" STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT * Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental/traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best BuX development in Richfield. N (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9'``) STOP THE BrS"UYPROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 't— xt:- Tj�-jVq w ll.L NC>T 5TAY -�5 L c'a NC-> -AS ,A-y i C7 "i�t =.ALEZ +-+IP5 i-- ®M w�L;P Name: L, E.OtV tzNt c..i) 'n'..AJA -�j :5 (0 tom.) Street: - 7-4x44 Is:"- Apt. # City: `21c-�- /1�,F -IC-- Ln /'estate:MtN ip: SS4Z -4 Signature: Date:. tt�CX� (Please to c Walser by Thursday, November ) JECT!!!* srt of the official City mental /traffic impacts that will be. caused Best Buy devpjogment in Richfield. V, #0L A, ELcs CrR/1 �t o�/. ©71fr��v /r r -t C-/7-7/ f a ANC /4- SO 1N7 3 ' /N 2 r 1w G CURB 0IlF-Sl TNrs 0#4f SRO"' Ho&- Vft s4PP6 Name: MH'N C9. of s ?1 t2 Cu�1 (Zt t%TS Street: 6a S1 0 SEMI Ave Sy Apt. # City: d L1f�l D State: MA/ Zip: SSY-0 Signature:, ► Date: l s t7d (Please mail u4alser by Thursday, November 9'h') STOP THE BEST -B UY PR OJECU M' STOP THE BE ' B UY PR OJECT! ! ' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that w'' ill be caused record, about the environmental /traffic impacts -that will be caused by the Best Buy deve rpment in �Richfielhby the Best Buy development in Richfield. --�- ' d-P r a t IV S Esc L-) u G t;-C= me: 0 C S D Street: I V a 0 PG rtT L-- 6,4/b v,- d Apt. # City: � r l e LD State: (0%?/ Zip: Signature: Date:- 14/00 /D I__........... • A1�7...... L.. 77......7...: 11f_......•L _.. /11%!.1 STOP THE BESTBUYPROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will - because by the Best Bu develo ment in Richfield. I* . ,, ---W- ezo,.1L... k.�4'" Name: _. b� Street: Ms. Ruth Martinson Apt, # City:_ 723512th Ave S Richrield MN 55423 -3342 ate: Z) p:' ,P ; Signature:u, s Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9` ") Name: Street:- kill Apt. # City: State:, Zip: y Signature: P ° w Date: t t v-b (Please mail to Walser by Thursday' 9' ") STOP THE BEST�SBUT PROJECT ' are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City -d, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused e .% j) Buy developmqnt in � Richfield. U-&�) Name:. ggvrt o S�-11 AS xeavMN Street• o n Apt. # City: State• Zip: Signature: ,Ifw:A AA-:14 S _ Date: (t - O G - 0 o (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9'6) M wii Ml M M M (" M ® M M Nw = M M M " M STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT! ! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official C record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be cau by the Best Buy development in Richfield. er Name: 'O'O!, �y Street: 5 Apt. # City: State:/%N` Zip: Signature: � Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9"') STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECM Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official Cii record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caul by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: ] o jUf7 EMb &r± Street: f753 Q MA-h Ale ,�,7�, Apt. # City: L> 2RAA Stater Zip:-5r ->.O Signature. V 1�X�r,OA Date: I) - (o - o�p (Please ma' t Walser by Thursday, November 0) STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!, Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. T C- F1 S does. N-4 Seem $4 Aida a.) whQ� 710/ e yre,-- -,21S , &,mod Pe-- ,teUWIdA,,)4- J>ad` -L AALn;eI.l.A- e.,). -r< .4—,- Name: 4 ,A'A)Abel r-e'4 eoe Street: 73c ,L) d Ave S'a Apt. # City: CAl , e /aL State: &,y Zip: �' .Yg:3 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9``') STOP THE BEST BUY PROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. Name: [?,e Street: 6 �- a.. i - ( I ),4 V, S, Apt. # City -R J A k-4 AL Stated K) Zip: ,S 5 c/ Signature: 80z Q- , PAC --� Date: 1 /ZVav (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 91h.) STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!' Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be ca by the Best Buy development in Richfield. ZT lame: City: „� Signature: Date: _.. l.P.1oa'co. rani %.tn..LYlJbco�•�:�irnerlr'r� 7y ,>., sr. T. Or_. 9�h'. i_.__.._.�.._._..._....._..._,. STOP THE BEST B UY PR OJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused ,re Best Buy development in Tihfield. -.4 Z o 4c--1- .-41- Name:_ Mr. and Mrs. John H. Clark 2909 Washburn Circle Street : — Richfield, MN 55423 Apt. # City: State• Zip: Signature:%,1' ,� ,. ,�,� _ _ Date: f/-. a d i STOP THE BEST BUYPROJECT!!!- j STOP THE. BUYPROJECT!!! Here are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City �ere are my concerns, to be submitted as part of the official City record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused record, about the environmental /traffic impacts that will be caused by the Best Buy development in Richfield. by the Best Buy development in Richfield. 7'h c_ ,c�-M, / -- Gi/l �ht �%Zl�ihi&J A-d�+ � ucld� s�tti AeS I'd e,.,vj'i 4 G- G/� �h,4T',- GG lel t6'• e14 rtA s R” 4/ f'vr�veD ,/ ��� / m�1i i)'k (r�l,& i�ru ,� i i / ti !70, P,/ a �L�1 �r/.y� ti f� / -f=i c�ti1L. S � yy � 'u- 6Gb j ./.l.. -4-t l/'17�i:no Vii - 1- Ml- hA-f -A _ ✓w1•w� Jae f /v..,,i ..D. A I..iI_ Z TES/ /rye, / C7 e JI/�P�Ii f- %�C.4 5 f1 f -e Se✓rv`- N Name: NP. 44s. &)-e9 Z6,wt*- Street: y245 l- Irnda -jl! Ave S. Apt. # City:----A &ALA Stater Zip: .55,543 Signature: Date: /� 0 (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9'h) _ c .�Qe- Name: /469-SHm, -,Ad .y P Street: 72-IL- Aa. S� Apt. # City: /c' J c- d Stater Zip: Signature:G,°,.�•�- ,_eo�c.� Date: (Please mail to Walser by Thursday, November 9'4) b � n 0 � Ip 1 I� .Q d � N 0 t? t5 cu = n CD 3 O0 (D N Q N � �cam 3 so CL (D = (CD N N < cn 0 = O 7 ( 7 (D N C 0-@ 3 acl N n-0 'm O R 3 O- (D n n c n Q O 'ro 1 � S. Ci U, b j . y �a° Lv b Ga Ga A 0 0 O' (D = -< n (D 3 O ° Q �, y (D !v CD O a Sr ao `� 'b o y Q `D ° ID <� o B 3 =°0 -3 2 cr 3 cl Q0N ° ° `r ° O Im o cr c� ° 0 �' y CD •� f al NNE c Y�C7 3�4 f Z a�lQ �d wil/f' -7? 1l>'1 � z� .�s a��-N � 1 ntn - �t J�.Vvi, �- 37/Y c�-� �•v� �s 9 arm ° i /vl �iJ YID 4� 4'nt �`J -J-7 d' n''.S 0-1- `7 -ia `1-11 (�'i 1�-�-1 '?% v ��� n �-�i! o'v'a% !�� �� ' � a� i' G� �7 • � mil' ?.dY . : 'T�-+- -� �'7-��_� �-� L�f7.L !�'ra.L -5yY1 t14oC7t Cd y» S/ OI t A OWE a M-'e 1,41 �s�1 �-7/0 1s1YvAs-019L %.lid ow d- Ate VDQ � I vy4W 3j � 0-7 CZL� 151 AW ,4 as- -?O° swo/"-57 (✓/ �ZZ h-�-s /vN / W `d.-7--:E� 1----4 -0 1 ?j I /vim -n S-4+ ---W (-.?7 � so) 4O Q-Z —2- --// 7- - " o o t -17 -Ti ! j- �� (yQ `- � r �'d ' •0a �nca 5v -a ry lx::'4' (:I/vv N- �a►1ti1 (1/" 4W -gD-Y cq Q,� � S I�-E9 '771. -9 L >lN' y S-�N �/� -�/.� -rim 2L i "r --L I Qd _Lnro�p lad • s�>> � r� �j,c3 -,rx -1-t air /Yo ' mo>v 4/►' -v Nv-b '7 -::�' r'l S °l� - Q-vo-)::t y /''o r- s'7lo �s -W51411-6? tiN- ,W -V�V.S _4V Q Q- :r- 'sZ�4zr.-�n Inn wrQ ao � y /vim z v .7 w -gsoi4L `Ti-V Qr,-7a a mn a ' �1� 9 /✓Q'J �-�'� l - }I�7� -iv?J� �i �/� 1 �l Q. Q ��al.1tiL� LZ-ld /� "/I/ I J199w"OV, MY" IN, / 399PId - I OnOZ saaxii .4,o,N,, , ;,)!Il , 1, � , qqd a, MIGNIN "I aldild1v I I f 1 1 t 1 e 1 r 1 1 6A NchReld lay 24, 2000 EAW available Best Buy proposal Environmental assessment to be discussed public meeting' The city of Richfield has drafted an environmental assessment of the pro- posed Best Buy campus development and is seeking public input on the doc- ument. The Scoping Environmental As- sessment Worksheet (EAW) identifies environmental issues that need to be examined, such as the development's effect on traffic, the water table and air quality. The Scoping EAW is the first step toward preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the devel- opment. Richfield Community Development Director Bruce Palmborg said the EAW process is expected to be com- pleted within 60 days. The City Coun- cil is expected to vote on the document at its July 10 meeting. The EAW is available for review at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Ave. S., Augsburg Park Library, 7100 Nicol - let Ave. S., and at the Southdale -Hen- nepin Area Library, 7001 York Ave. S. The public is invited to comment in writing on the EAW through June 14. Comments should be to Julie Urban, Planning and Zoning Administrator, city of Richfield, 6700 Portland Ave. S., Richfield, MN 55423. The Best Buy plan The Best Buy project seeks to re- place the 10 -block area of residential and commercial property north of In- terstate 494 between Knox and Penn -avenues with a multi- building office complex. The $150. million complex is expect- ed to accommodate the 3',000 Best Buy employees -who currently work in of- fices in Eden Prairie. The company an- ticipates hiring an additional 2,000 corporate employees over the next five years to'support the company's expan- sion. 1b meet the company's space needs, several low -rise office buildings total- ing 1.5 million square feet of space have been included in the concept plan for the Richfield site. By comparison, each of the Meridian Crossings - office towers at Interstate 35W and I-494 en- compass 200,000 square feet of space. The development is consistent with the Richfield comprehensive plan's classification for the majority Of the property. The northern portion of the development area is, however, zoned for housing and neighborhood commercial buildings, which is incon- sistent with the Best Buy concept. The City Council will have to reclas- sify this area for regional commer. cial/office uses for the development to proceed. Preliminary plans provide two op- tions, four 10 -story buildings or five six -story buildings that could accom- modate a total of 7,500 employees. As many as three multi,-level park- ing ramps could be constructed around the campus. Between the buildings, a pond. a walking path and trees could be included. Best Buy officials have said the groundbreaking for the site could occur in spring 2001 and the campus could open as early as the summer 2002. What's- next '- - WLak- Meeting on.the Scoping --Environmental - -Assessment. .Worksheet: of Best Buy. campus development•_ -- ; When: 7.pm.; .Wednesday, -: 'Vhej Richfield - City, Halt,:: ;'6700 Portland.Ave.iS. - 1[nformatione 612- 861 - '9760: i; The development would consume 67 houses, 87 apartment units, 13 businesses and the Walser and- Wally McCarthy auto dealerships. • . The site would be a 25 -year talc -in- aremeut.financing -(TM district with the increased taxes generated by the new buildings being used to finance the development:. Under the terms of the TIF district, as much as $35.9 mil- lion would be provided to subsidize the nearly $45 million cost Best Buy would spend to purchase properties and as- semble the site. Included in the subsidy-is $7.1 mil- lion to widen the Penn Avenue bridge over I494. If federal or state money be- comes available for the bridge project, then the $7.1 million would be used to subsidize the site assembly costs. The bridge project is expected to cost be- tween$9 million and $16 million. "About $7.2 million of the new taxes generated. throughout the life of the TIP district would be allocated to a housing trust fund, which could be used to build and rehabilitate Rich- field housing. —� Compiled by Michael Werner Richfield Sun- CunentNVednesday, May 17, 2000 3A SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW, BEST BUY CAMPUS The environmental review process for the Best Buy Campus project has begun. This process will study the impact of the development on Items such as stormwater, infrastructure (i.e. roads and utilities), public services, wildlife, surface and ground water, air quality, soils, and adjacent land uses. There are three phases to the process. Each phase provides an opportunity for public Input. • Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Comment period: May 15— June 14, 2000 - Public Meeting: 7:00 p.m., June 7, 2000, Richfield City Hall City Council action: 7:00 p.m., July 10, 2000, Richfield City H_ ail • Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Comment period: August 21— September 26, 2000 Public Meeting: 7:00 p.m., September 13, Richfield City Hall • Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Comment period: October 30 — November 13, 2000 City Council action: 7:00 p.m., December 11, 2000, Richfield City Hall Note. the dates and times for the Draft and Final EIS are preUminary.-Contact Cily Han for the most current schedule. The Scoping EAW determines which Issues will be addressed in the EIS and how the Issues will be studied. The EIS studies the issues, determines the impacts, and develops ways to mitigate the negative impacts. Ali documents will be available for review at Richfield City Hall, Augsburg Park Library, and the Southdale Branch Library. Comments can be submitted to writing during the comment periods. Written comments should be submitted to: Julie Urban Planning A Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Questions about the project can be directed to Julie Urban or John Stark, Community Development Manager at 61218619760. po /h�Js �rn� �rvnS 09L6-L9M191s Ja6eus`y luawdolsnaQ Apunwwoo Vvis ugor Jo usgan a//nr 01 P81084p eq use loolord sW inoge suopsonp SZ1►SS NW `PI611401d 43nos enuenV PUvP"d OOLS P181140la 10 Ailo .104c4slultupV 6uluo2 T 6uluuq uewn ellnP :01 PGWLugns eq pinot{s sluewwoo uaWM •spolied luewum 941 Buunp 6u.Wm ui pell!wgns eq uw sluewwoo -Ajwq! -I LIW843 91EPWOS a41 Pue'4tpjgrl gied 6ings6nV 'IIEH Alto P194431H 110 eealneJ col olquilene 9q Wu► slue 30 11V -sloedu4 angeBau a41 e196!11w 01 sAVM sdolanap pus 's;oedwl a4i seulUualep 'senssl e4l selpnls S13 ma - palpnls eq ulm-sanssl at# a04 pus SO a41 -ul Passaippu eq ulm sansl tIol4M seu!uuelop MV3 BuldooS a4.L 8LA JOI M Hilo Petuoo Imulw id aie eK►P84� tua�mo sow !18 S0 MUld PUe Uw(l etp aoI seu* Pue setep eyt :%ON IIEH A110 PP#431» 'OOOZ 't l 1egwe3ea "W*d OO :L :cope 1puno3 Allo OOOZ '£ t jegwenoN — oe jegoloo :polled luawwoa (SIM luewelMS lOdwl 184uatuuoJInu318u1d . IIsH Allo PP44o!a'Et jegwaldaS.•-w -dQO :L :6u4eeW ellgnd OOOZ '8Z jagwaldoS — tZ 1sn6nV :poked luawwoa (S13) luawal"S laedwl 1e4uawuoalnu3 ueJQ . IIeH Al!o PIGW o!a 'OOOZ '0 t Alnr ''w•d OO :L :uolpe gounoo ADO IMH APO PlalWo!U 'OoOZ'L sunp'-w-d OWL :BuPeW o!Ignd 0009 'b t aunp — g t AgW :potted luawwoa (MV3)1"4sKJoM luawss SW 1eluetuuwlnu3 6uldooS . . •lndui ollgnd lol 4unpoddo us sepinoid eso4d 4oe3 -ss000id et41 o1 sesegd eal41 ejg aaa41 -sawn puel lueoejpe pus 'sl!os 'Alllenb Jlu jejam punoiB pug aoglms 'a111P1IM 'see!nIas ollgnd '(salllpin Pug spsoi -a-O ainlorulsie4q 'jeiemu uols se 4ons swan uo luewdoleAep e41 to loedwl 941 Apnls 111m ss000id sl41-unBeq 3e4 loe[oid sndweo Ang lsee a41.to1 ssaooid Melnai Ieluawuoulnue e41 sndWV3 Ans 1538 `MMA311 IfOd 318V-I1VAV .133HS31HOM 1N31MSS3SSV IVIN3WNOHIAN3 ONIdOOS i 1 i 1 Fj 1 [I 1 t I 1 t 1 Bulsnoq PIsl3�IlIIIIquqiu P PLmg Psm ag pinm tplgm `pant IMX �Utsnoq.s o3_pa3sooAs.eq pinoes ja. dLL etPio sill aqI inog2ooagl palsjaUa saxe4 esea eq; 3o uogPuc Z'L$ lnogy = •aoT pm-gT$ Pas UogttV 6 uaaegaq �saa o; papodxa sc rafojd 82pu ,._ agy.'s;soa �tlgmasse site aq aztptsgns Pam s4 pinoe� • Uo. pu T'L$ ems: as `gaafcud a9pljq aTU io,I afgsjceAS sataoo Oeq- dauotit eMs ao MOM3I''66p-I Jahn a?puq anueAV sued otp uspze� g3 uoq Fm T'L$ sl Aptsgzie AL StD ul- PoPniauI $q} algacasse pas sagjedojd asegund Qa Paade pinoes Qng sag Isoa uotllcac 93;$- �Ijeaq otR ortprsgns o; Papt4wd eq PInoA+ uogV= -6'ws ae tlanta se '42u�elp sg4 3o ff" aq}'raPuII -- luacadolaA -ap elp aoasug of Pasn 2ucaq 92utpling mea aq{: �q pa ;sjaua� saxes- peseaca -at stp tn!&!PEgmp.(&b $�ueuu 4uatu ! 1-M-187 JmA-Sg a eq pinoAt ears stLL sdRelateop eqn a oAy pns so ssautsnq Si `slIsn 3u8u�dg.L8 `sasnoq 49 sutnsuoa pinoes luatadolanap -aq,L - •ps;sdratlug sasegd.a=nn3 ou q us `�uatII doleAep. a1aldzaoo auo se polantIsaoa - -eq PIn9At 14uatudoleAep sndtim -oqy 'ZUQZ.js�na am se �fltsa ss Ueda MOO endvmm aqj Pus IOOZ• *jds m :. jnaao: prCtoa s;ts aq7 jo3 $�azQpunoc� '81D PRO 04eq slezao ..tasdtuO� -m eq- pinoa sea •Pepnlo. `puod a %2 per. qI� Tees .s azplmg. eq� tcaaes�eg 'sndmsa . elp punojs: pa�an•gsuoo eq P.In°o sdutiu - �an[ansd IaAat t3lnta eacq; se Auum By 'sea ,Colduca ppg'6 0} do o;epommoim a{ POU9�p eq MAL sndum eg;L'4883 anubs Uarlltna •6•1 -03 do _2ulsssdtaoaue pas 881=48-,31 eq Oes3 tang 3q$laq tg bus z - p�'�.eq ILUA vean3ait s OAU Jo jnod . sasvedwoo a ..UOTBaedxa q;- Paddns o; 9009 Aq-saeSold -ace olsaocitoa �,Z ionogr ue Lu �Iaptts dugdtuoo eq L -e�,d u8n. Uc BWWO m $joss'flluamw oqe& 8ea�told -Iqa dng WE, 003`8 aqi cqupommomv oq Ps'adxe sc xaldmoo uog� pgI$ ezl,L 'pearl s9ejodaoa s;z PIOMt.R-tq smwnb . -Pao' g 3'u 2 a pt.mq sI ima t BIRD ps�taatuoa •djo� �Cng �� aq; 8atpnola -eanlrg to P mlt ae.Bq .leDj6 tze atl} tft suedd 4UautdoleAepaa `S"OAand 'L66I.m IUauadolaAapat �+s ao3 POWWOW IMU sees 'W& a2asgaaSj -ul.ss am°atl `30afojd otn 3o eats 9%L aq3 ao eaOA.o� jagMGDeQ ut luma sop g OV a ur Pa;oadxa sl Ilounoa.atp pus qI JrWR Maodxe sr SIg i� •s3agdntc asoq ;3O uoc}eBptta lea qod q� Pug s}asdtul sjoa fojd otp uo aogeau °3ag aptAOjd lllmMujP GU'IZ SnV ao•�uaat ucoa otlgnd �tmM ulasq pas .SIg egg 3 °P s gsllgndaxa•la! aQL• -. 'qaazuntoa orlgnd3o 3Iumj g se Passa tppe aq llres R"d $gjmu'pue sae!Asaped do *W" 3o shags otp pus alts aol:"Saco et13 tuoj3 aeaeespanocS Geese AIdzund jo3 paou eql - `•flieuoll -IPPV Wa 4;"tgwv- ouolstq'sgi smogs off. a3cs Aq 04q 'cPm atp 30 49&m s pus XPf4s PM94 a o s un• a; . � -t mg - pple 4gsta apnla o3 :vi aq� `sauaum:oo atlgnd ega•;o �jiisat -s �. 'weld OtR uo Pa9a8taMO3 aAtnoutojnVjsg%Ag Panq 3uelInsuoo aWv4 s pug g;ueplow Plsugal$ aAg `uolaum. "Ig jo d7io eq;. `sarau82e ages aetd •g3uom ;set mt�3 eq� ao ;uatattioa atIgnct pattagos ,4!a ; q%L "-xaldmroa eaglo ."&q-glnna if W& sanUOne uuad pas XOUX uaem4eq V6V lilw4szala13o qa tou 4jedcud lelajma -moa pas 184UOPrsaj3o safe Volq-UI atV aaeldw o3 s3leas 3aafejd tng lsag athL •sa4uas *ggnd pug ' ejtgon.gmujm Uo spaduq M Pas ` wed -un IunerA `suotsstura jM p Utal-al3tq -8A 3t1 'tiol;eznuce�aoa aapbpunoa jO3 Isqualod atl3 `gpmzuq muaacudxteaa ao3 PMuagod eqj m pjpps III&. Sig qtly eq PinOgs M.Mli as e► spa g al FsIP� �sagesljoes �uatussasse � ���a �*&Os ezly •pe"daad eq Sig tfe sojtub- - 2 Wfe.ad Ing jsag aq;3o adoos s 'pwedajd -eq o; (SIa - �uataaaels.3andutt Is ;uauctiOjlAua. ug j °3 & aq3 2tnASd juatudolaeeL3 sndataa Ang gag pasodoad oq, sot 10ags410 n Ieaaata O.XIAUa- UV paAorddu Clsnour - ttisun Ilaunoo Alm plat3.xp aq�L JMMM 10843M All - isn6nbw pepodxo S13 "Pia, S I.a uauMMP 7URU OJUU sido Juno W07'UnSUU9' NMM 1 LJ 11 i G r FAX: 612- 861 -9749 Press Release - Richfield Community Development For more information, call: Julie Urban 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Voice: 612- 861 -9700 For Release: July 17, 2000 Date: July 14, 2000 EIS PREPARATION NOTICE FOR THE BEST BUY CAMPUS In July 2000, the City of Richfield distributed a Scoping Decision Document to all agencies listed on the EQB distribution list and all interested parties. The document describes the scope of investigation and anticipated schedule for the Best Buy Campus EIS that will be prepared by the City for the Best Buy Co, Inc. The Scoping Decision Document is based on the available information documented in the Scoping EAW and draft Scoping Decision Document, input from the public scoping meeting and written comments received during the comment period. The following items will be analyzed in the EIS: erosion control, surface water runoff, traffic, air quality, noise, hazardous materials, storage tanks, and groundwater contamination, solid wastes, historical /archaeological resources, water supply changes, waste water, visual impacts, compatibility with plan and adjacent land uses, public services (police, fire, ambulance), social and economic impacts, and cumulative impacts. The following additional topics will be discussed in lesser detail in the EIS: landscaping benefits on wildlife habitat, need for dewatering activities, the size and location of the emergency generators, 76th Street impacts on pedestrians and bikers, and how the current metering practices applied by the Minnesota Department of Transportation may be modified as a result of this project. The purpose of the project is the private redevelopment, of the site to' provide. office space to meet the needs of Best Buy and their employees. The EIS will evaluate the following alternatives: NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE: The site would not be redeveloped for office space. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES: The general parameters for the development alternatives are: a minimum expansion size with 1.5 million sq. ft. and 7,500 parking spaces (Option A); and a maximum expansion size with 1.9 million sq. ft. and 9,500 spaces (Option B). Alternative 1: This alternative includes five buildings clustered around a central pond. An additional two story common use area would be constructed between two of the buildings to house uses such as a convenience store, cafeteria, day care facility and fitness center. Parking would be provided in three structured ramps, ranging in height from two levels to five levels. A surface lot would also be included along the souther portion of the site. Access to the site would be located on Penn Avenue; --Knox Avenue, and on 76th Street at Newton Avenue. Alternative 2: This alternative includes four buildings located in the southwest half of the site, connected by a two story common use area, with ponds located along the southerly and southwesterly side of the property. Parkingwould be provided primarily in one large parking structure on the northeast half of the site, ranging in height from five to seven levels. A surface lot would also be provided along the southern portion of the site. Access to the site would be from three entrances located on Penn Avenue, Knox Avenue and 76th Street at Newton Avenue. 76th STREET RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES 41111 Additionally, the City of Richfield may require upgrades to 76th Street between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue, as part of this project. The EIS will look at three different road improvement alternatives for 76th Street. These alternatives will include one alternative that widens the roadway to the north, one that widens the roadway to the south and one that widens the roadway with*a combination to the north and south of the existing right of way. RGU: City of Richfield Contact: Julie Urban, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 Phone: 612/861 -9766 Fax: 612/861 -8974 1 I pue :sjslloAolq pue sueulsoped uo spedwl 6uiusp1nn lea-11S 4i91:sjojejaua6 A3ua6jawa jo uol eooI pue azls eqj :Iel!ge4 0}11p11nn uo spedwl 6ulde3spuel :soijm }oe 6uuajemep :SI30 041 ul lle;ap aassal w possnoslp aae soldol leuolllppe 6ulnaollol a41 -spedwl anllelnwno pue !sjoedwl olwouooa pue leloos :(aoueingwe 'aiy 'aollod) saowas dllgnd '!sasn puel juaoefpe pue ueld 4jIM �Iyglledwoo spedwl iensln :jajenn alsenn !sa6ue43 Alddns aajenn !seojnosai Ieol6olo9ey3.je/Ie3uojs14 !sa;senn pllos Iuo.qeulweluoo 1ajempunoa6 pue 's lue} a6eao }s 'sleua}ew snop ieze4 !eslou !Al!lenb .ile !oWe.4 :.}pumialenn aoejjns :la}uoo uoisoia :SI30 941 ul pozAleue aae swall 6ulnnollol 841 -pouad juawwoo Buldoos eqj 6uunp panl039J sJu0ww03 ua:4pm pue 6ullaaw 6uldo3s ollgnd 84j woaj 1ndui 'Jaayppo' m ;uawssessy Je;uawuorinu3 6uJdooS 04} ul pajuawnoop uollew.iolul uo poseq seen luewnooa uolsload 6uldo3S 841 'OOOZ Alnp ul painqu}slp seen 1egj sndweo A'ne Jsaa eyl jo _4 ;uawn000 uasioa(7 6uJdooS all w malnai COI P,9114uapl alarm je4j 139fo id a4} jo spedse aso41 sazAleue SI34 041 •saaAoldwo sjl pue An@ }sae jo speou 84j jam of coeds aoWo olul a ;is eqj dolanapo i of sI joefo id a4} jo asodind a41 -1ses a4} uo onuany xouyl pue 4pou 041 uo 1004S 91 'IsOm 041 uo anuand uuad '4lnos eqj uo 1761, -I Aq popunoq sl alls pefoid sndweo tEl }sa8 a41 *118H 40 P1094312i 18 'OOOZ 'S I• jagwaldeS uo play aq 111m 6uuea4 ollgnd y 'OOOZ '8Z jagw91d8S spua S130 eqj col pouad juawwoo ollgnd a41 -oui '-oo Ang Isas a4} Aq pasodo id 6ulaq juawdoleAepai sndweo Ang isa8 eqj jo spedwl ie)uawualnua legua}od a4} aumajap of plog4olZl }o /110 a4; �(q pajedajd seen SI3a 841 *saiped palsaja}uI lie pue isll uoljnqujslp (8103) paeo8 Al!lent) Ieju9wuoj1Au3 041 uo pa}sll saioua6e Ile of plopola ul sndweo Ane Isa8 posodoid-.egl jol (SI3a)1uawG1elS joedwl Ieluawualnu3 Ueja a palnqulslp plalJ4oiU jo AG!o 84j 'OOOZ ' I Z }sn6nb uo sndWV3 Ana ims 3Hi mod 331lON sm 1:ibua OOOZ ' I•Z 1sn6ny :ajea OOOZ ' 6Z isn6ny :aseelad jo3 W6-699-M :xe=l 0016 -1,99-Z 69 :0310A SZtG9 NW 'PI8943IN anuand puel )Jod OOL9 dOIV ,uegjn allnr :Ileo 'uollewiolul a.low Jo=I ;uowdolanaa Aj1unwwo3.pjeUg3iM - eseeleM ssa.id 1 1 t 1 Fj 1 1 1 how the current metering practices applied by the Minnesota Department of Transportation may be modified as a result of this project. The DEIS evaluates the following development alternatives: NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE: The site would not be redeveloped. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES: Two development alternatives are proposed, each with the.following two levels of development: an expected development size of 1.5 million sq. ft. and 7,500 parking spaces (Option A); and a maximum development size of 1.9 million sq. ft. and 9,500 parking spaces (Option B). .Alternative 1: This alternative includes five buildings clustered around a central pond. An additional one story commons area would be constructed between two of the buildings to house uses such as a convenience store, a cafeteria, a day care facility and a fitness center. Parking would be provided in three structured ramps, ranging in height from two levels to five levels. A small surface lot would also be included along the southern portion of the site. Access to the site would be located on Penn Avenue, on Knox Avenue, and on 76th Street at Newton Avenue. Alternative 2: This alternative includes four buildings located in the southwest half of the site, connected by a one story common use area, with ponds located along the southerly and southwesterly side of the property. Parking would be provided primarily in one parking structure on the northeast half of the site, ranging in height from five to seven levels. A small surface lot would also be provided along the southern portion of the site. Access to the site would be from three entrances located on Penn Avenue, on Knox Avenue and on 7e Street at Newton Avenue. 7e STREET RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES Additionally, the City of Richfield will require-upgrades to 76th Street between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue, as part of this pro�ect. The DEIS analyzes three different roadway improvement alternatives for 76 Street. These alternatives will include one alternative that widens the roadway to the north, one that widens the roadway to the south and one that widens the roadway both to the north and south of the existing right of way. RGU: City of Richfield Contact: Julie Urban, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Richfield - - - 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Phone: 6121861 -9766 Fax: 6121861 -8974 a m o -.to - 0 &0 Pr ... o a"C. ►�_ g '�T1 a., o m •o � A ►-y m M Onp� (D M � e� • m A t O m M h7 t. o m Opp : M� b A 00 y p C40D p uj 0 b n sag-�o� CD l) a'I_. SM, rrSbm mom, o �D ( CD C CD m m r �mq:!p , H i7 M Mp �Oy O A cr FT . tv O A Fe t1.O O m A'L7 p ��0 (DW O 1-3 0 a 'O J m CD cD ,6-4-0 er ca m � ... y� +y A to H z'J FCC A p rr i3.- Cn p7 I'D pyt > C cn r^ y 7/! LD (D pj N• tit SL W [I CA H CD o iy m tV tO� e+ R. f3. ° o�m�(7tioom XD 00 03 i — SD �• ,Y O 3O m W nSU V Best Bey From Page U the 10 -block area of residential and com- mercial property north of Interstate 494 between Knox and Penn avenues, known as Interchange west, with a multi- build- iaB office complex. Interchange West, was first identified Ibr redevelopment in 1997. Best Buy Corp, committed itself early „his year to building its corporate head - luarters in Richfield. The $150 million Best Buy complex is txpected to accommodate )loyees who currn currently work in 3,400 ffices in. Widen Prairie. The company anticipates Bring an additional 2,000 to 3,000 cor- )orate employees in the next few years to upport its expansion. The campus is ex- jected to house up to 7,500 employees as "rho Plaid boys are back and stronger than ever!" _ -- & - &,W Tdb m Dinner's On Us! See Forever Plaid Wed or Thu eves in Sept, and have dinner on ust cauterdstaris. . the company grows in the future. The'DEIS examines two different de- velopment alternatives for the campus project. Under the first alternative, the devel- opment would include four or five office buildings with a minimum of 1.5 million square feet and parking for 7,500 cars. The buildings would be clustered around a central pond and parking would be pro- vided in three ramps ranging in height from two levels to five levels. Access to the site would be located on Penn Avenue, Knox Avenue and 76th Street at Newton Avenue. Under the second alternative, the maximum size for the development could reach 1.9 million square feet with park- ing for 9,500 cars. Four or five buildings would be constructed on the southwest half of the site, with ponds located along the southerly and southwesterly side of the property, Parking would be provided Primarily in one five - to seven -level park- ing structure on the northeast half of the site. The larger development alternative could accommodate 9,500 employees. "I think it's our anticipation that it would be the 1.5 million- square -foot de- velopment that would be occurring," said Richfield Community Development Man- ager John Stark. To accommodate the redevelopment, 76th Street would need to be upgraded between Interstate 35W and Penn Av- enue. The DEIS examines three options for widening the rgadway. Widening 76th Street to the south ap- pears to have the least amount of impact on the surrounding neighborhood, Stark said. "It wouldn't require the acquisition of any homes; he said. Best Buy's developer, Opus North- west, has negotiated purchase agree- ments with all of the 68 Interchange West homeowners, said Tim Murnane, Opus' vice president for real estate develop- ment. Sixty -seven agreements had been signed as of last week and one more was expected to be signed by the end of the end of the week. ' Opus has reached purchase agree- ments with Wally McCarthy's Oldsmo- bile and six other commercial property owners in Interchange West, Murnane said. Agreements are still being negotiat- ed with Walser Automotive and seven other property owners. Murnane said he is hopeful Opus can negotiate agreements with all of the •business owners but conceded that con- demnation might be necessary to acquire a few of the properties, Company officials have said the- groundbreaking for the site could occur in spring 2001 and the campus could Open as early as the summer 2002. The office project would be construct.' ed as one complete development with no future phases anticipated. The site would be a 25 -year tax- incre- ment financing (TIP) district with the in- creased taxes generated by the new buildings being used to finance the de- velopment. Under the terms of the TIF district, Best Buy will receive as much as $35.9 million in TIF to subsidize the cost of purchasing the properties. Site assem- bly will cost an estimated $45 million. About $7.2 million of the new taxes generated throughout the life of the TIF district would be allocated to a housing trust fund, which would be'used to build and rehabilitate Richfield housing. Since federal funds have not been forthcoming for widening the Penn Av- enue bridge, Best Buy's tax subsidy will be reduced to cover the cost of that pro- ject. Under the terms of the TIF district, approximately $587,000 of the campus' taxes will be paid annually to retire the bonds used for the bridge's construction. Adjusted for inflation, this stream of funds is expected to be worth about $7.1 million. The bridge project is expected to cost about $22.5 million. With the city's assis- tance, the Minnesota Department of Transportation will obtain loans to fund a— the remaining $15 million, said Richfield Public Works Director Mike Eastling. MnDOT will be responsible for repaying the loans. ' With part of Best Buy's property taxes.. being used to finance the bridge work, the Project is expected to be completed by No. vember 2002, rather than 2011 as the MnDOT had projected, city officials said. If the Best Buy development is not un- dertaken, no immediate improvements would be made to the bridge or 76th Street, so they would continue to suffer traffic delays,' said Richfield Planning' and Zoning Administrator Julie Urban, In exploring traffic issues associated with the Best Buy campus development, the DEIS examined the project's impacts on local intersections, Urban said. , The project won't cause the traffic flow of these intersections to operate at sub- standard levels, but it won't cause them to improve either, Urban said. However, if the maximum level of development — with as many as 9,500 employees work irig at the campus — occurred, it could teat the limits of the traffic system in the area, she said. Urban said Best Buy is also working to create a traffic management plan de- signed to encourage alternative forms of transportation, such as public transit and carpooling, thereby reducing the number of trips its employees make. According to Best Buy's economic im- pact study, about 600 employees current- ly work in the Interchange West area, with a majority of the employment con- centrated within the two automotive dealerships. . • Therefore, the net increase in jobs in Richfield as a rebult of the Best Buy de- yolopment is estimated to be about 4,900, which is a 35 percent increase in the city's total employment, according to the study. Best Buy's corporate employees reside in various communities across the met- ropolitan area with the highest concen- tration,about 13 percent, in Minneapolis, . i i 1 1 1 Public reacts _ - to Best Buy office plans. More than 150 people pack Sept. 13 meeting i By Mlchael,Wemer Sun Newspapers ' Best Buy's proposed corpo- rate:headquarteis development in Richfield than C/) `. attracted more 150 people to City Hall to dis- cuss its potential impacts. . Concerned residents and auto dealership employees filled City. Iladl Sept. 13 to offer cam - ments on the project's -Draft En- vironmental Impact Statement (DEIS). About 30 *people chose to comment publicly. Most fol- lowed the directions spelled out at the meeting and addressed the project's. expected impacts, rather than tag - increment fi- nancing or the cIWs redevelop- ment policy. "I think people tried to stay on point and that made for a smooth meeting; City Manager Samantha Orduno said during a telephone interview last week. ` fhere were a lot of good ideas out there."• • Among those offering com- ment at the meeting was Jim Benshoot a traffic consultant retained by Walser Automotive. . Benshoof said he found the traffic analysis portion of the DEIS to be very incomplete. "A number of very significant _impacts have not been ad- - dressed," he said. "Neither staff nor council have the basis to'- make a sound judgment." Benshoof said the metered ramps from Penn Avenue to In- terstate 494 could not accommo- date date the traffic volumes in the area, leading to "severe conges- tion" on Penn. BEST BUY: 1b Phee GA i r: 1 L� OR "W m pr CL•. � mV' � W .�.,y C' GG�i... � � � ��i QQ p �llp�� � d � " G, O }x � W m �r. Cil� � •. " %4 too bS�m .�os es ems a p°m�P`'S�otC qga�oo,p�� o,a �o m >r :A» Sa• .'py m Pip �m±.�e �, p"��ggM•�°e`r �� "Cb�, p``* �gm� pt. 'e 4i W � m � i�• »,� �e� +Y -S �;' � pE�q �e�r'P �W rs OULU FS, 0* td* s i a t"o+ A p o ° co �- �►�s afs, S m ►�i O, zr' _ p�? 1°' a pi I .yy 0 CL 'C� ° �mm " �P �° Soles fi b' �° °� n � C - II;. so o. �r all Pd 140 AR f 1,40 R Igo R m � `►�i'ey m gm g► 9. � � � b.'v � :" o• C4 I�� fu O N a f" M i�' Q' I t tp � Q mi i �i � M iP A S � P � �n••- I qF -fin c m 90 A n� C �O 1. a r' G.e+. �• A C.,'d. a tipy m Qq `�.y ° ~' p• �O " m P ►m•. R O �. + fD V] ems«+• m •�. 'd m ��j m .m E3 .i ��fD ��'aN �p ��ae� °'�,a�ra• �.� � ° �� ."f 0a In f3. t1D! SO C5 CL4 �Dp.�dc� gL CD Pi 14. EO°°•a`Nat -�� x+ F -M.�+ ��e �. � a t,. I.•� � a o� O. � ca � '. � t�7'ae m P o jy m �i 7 w, �' F• t6 'Yeti ° IJd < I� o. �.p� e°«� a'p T-• Q m rr Es ••m��--�se ...y� Or ;� R' ti �� .• -mam ' Sm.•Igy' �,w mr �Q�rr 134 Gv0 d m °C $� W . ,O d P », ' -0 w AS. g- co aom ►•,�.� <�QjDI �, p'o p °o d,�e�y�.� -+� tym eti n tid ° g o c o m G o� o. wmW i�ym �m ..�Mio���° I� ~� �'zsmtrlA�'��op�+f1:�'�D•e» i7't+'i° `°mom' or � m �b* d p .fi•A °' � '!� o' °�'j`{' 'S i5. � .,, �, � {p73� m'°t `'° S � �• �" 9eo m bC ° c. aa �s g o � � m.1 p o_ffc d$I'' �pca —a � �•� W � 1DR � m La P a m m K (r. �D„ y � t�. 'ti o tirt o m ..� b tttaL�. p '� � a+ •°. a e m t °� FL, m yp �: �e LT �J' fl C1 �p Ln O m a+ 0 A m O t7 td m �. m �'p m ° p a' -5 C �yy O �•t m �A � o p y�Q �A, � � " O 'd �' ° �D '� P� m• «. C .�° w ►Py pM �F' 101+2. oil •to`C °' »A �'t A �.S�aR pp -aC �i X07 � is;..,I -. 0�00 0. < -0 co ' Jr LION :e N N ' 3.trdo -Qm0 � 30�am ... m N 3 <°�.i'y O'y y = 'Ay c y to .M N :30 wo���°�a �, CL r.L to 0 (A-0 Q v CD 'C`G Cc = N O N % C) ONCa�,00 01.0 -3o -� N� o a r. CL r -o ? d ar cr CL O —cD0 `C 0 �.« W cn ,..d. 3 -s ='y♦�O�C (D �.. �' N a r (D Dyy0�, O = 3 < (D 0.�. O .-F t r+ ? LT • ? N Uf � �D �D i M. F C.. o _M C P CA-- n Q.• •- .Z A LL p '. R :zC W CL A � � : �` - ' N . � *rig► L vt0 cr , %4.9 VOL 1.1 O �� .�*a O 'p. Ma pop. npn O � A O � IrF C. . i ® 0 •ii 0 c (ORKST 3U so .OPUS. ` The City of Richfield. Rest Bw Co., inc.., and Opus Northwest, LL*C*,f Invite you to attend a Best Buy Campus Project ?• f t � �' ♦ !. .1 5,•OU. ' At Richfield Middle School • • 7461 Oliver Avenue Tuesday, September 19,,2000, 4:30 -8 p:m. Thursday, September 21., 2000, 4:30 -8 p.m. (The open houses are identical, so please stop by either evening with your questions) This event Is an Qpportunity to learn more about the-Best Buy campus project. Information will. be available on traffic analysts, the new Pann Avenue Bridge, Environmental Impact Statement, bene- fits to the community, approval process and property acquisition status. We wlij have preliminary site plans available to view, and representatives from the City, of Richfield, Best Buy and Opus will be available to gnswer questions and discuss the project one -on -one with community members. :uot3euzoju][ 'S ae� ient[U T"4 [oogag a[PPFJq w .4 TO •u•d 8 o} -urd 0r.p.mOij oq Ua- sasaoq Uado eU -saot;sarib ' C :iaessae (q-pUgq uo eq.MA� sndo p� .[ng 3owp•se-minuasazdaz pug • - =e *mown uorPujp -iron n. pus 4uau 7ard •� -� �}uotauo,z;nug: aq3 - IIo nogsuuojar ` Uem - -eeo :dui Pew paid `sad -utsa OW AV uRd Inp a amp . -Nei I[m. "meq undo ou � `.tepsangy Pug 461 * ;dew ' ` vPsau,L "t�lidiio[asap• sad -Um 6ng 4eag alp senafgp + 04 sasnoq uodo pnpuoo wAk �saasgttol� saStk pue> bag `PPa3gs�#o6�n ' . �g- eqy. , jesoda�d�ng.�g- no .. • Map . •- dill _ ImMAN, FAX: 612 -861 -9749 -V -- Develoineit For more information, call: Julie Urban or John Stark 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Voice: 612 -861 -9700 For Release: October 26, 2000 Date: October 26, 2000 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BEST BUY CAMPUS Notice is hereby given that a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the Best Buy Campus project is available. The proposed 42.85 -acre campus is located southeast of Penn Avenue and 7& Street, and northwest of Interstate 35W (1 -35W) and Interstate 494 (1 -494). The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) consists of the minor changes to the Draft Environmental impact Statement (DEIS), the written comments received on the DEIS, a summary of the verbal comments made at the September 13, 2000 public Information meeting, and the responses to all comments on the DEIS. The project will include the demolition of single family houses, duplexes, apartment buildings, and commercial structures to accommodate the construction of four to five office buildings, with an expected minimum development of approximately 1.5 million square feet to create offices for up to 7,500 employees, and up to a maximum development of 1.9 million square feet to create offices for up to 9,500 employees. The alternative with the expected square footage will include parking spaces for up to 7,500 cars; the alternative with the maximum square footage will include parking spaces for up to 9,500 cars. The FEIS is available for review at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota and at Augsburg Park Branch of the Hennepin County Library, 7100 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, and at the Southdale Branch of the Hennepin County Library, 7001 York Avenue, Edina, Minnesota. 1 7 fl I 1 1 r 1 [1 1 Comments on the FEIS are invited from the public during the o fficial comment period which ends on November 13, 2000. Comments should be in writing and should be addressed to: Ms. Julie Urban Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Comments can be mailed to Ms. Urban or dropped. off at Richfield City Hall. Questions about the FEIS or 6112/861-9760. 1 redby Ms. Urban or Development John Stark, Community Manage 1 1 1 1 1 1 r E 000,Z 11jjiqqw9o9,a, Md Il OU4,98 MMM, PuvW`P,9,1,9'tvJlP9&'OdOJd UVIIIJ, U aa a a2R UBM PUBM la ,(f I!aAUjlL, pasodwj, a xi I I I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 BEST BUY CAMPUS PROPOSED TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for: Best Buy Co., Inc. Prepared by: BRW, Inc. December 11, 2000 u 1 i] 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. GOAL OF THE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................1 1.1 Goal ................................................................................... ..............................1 1.2 Objectives and Strategies to Achieve Goal ....................... ..............................1 1.3 Development of Goal ........................................................ ..............................2 2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ ..............................5 2.1 Initial Steps for TDM Plan . .5 2.2 Existing Policies ................................................................ ..............................6 2.3 Project Description ............................................................ ..............................6 2.4 Access to Transit ............................................................... ..............................8 3. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ................ .............................10 3.1 Promote Transit Use ........................................................ .............................10 3.2 Promote Car Pooling ....................................................... ..............................1 l 3.3 Promote Van Pooling ...................................................... .............................11 3.4 Promote Bicycle Use ........................................................ .............................12 3.5 Promote Telecommuting .................................................. .............................12 3.6 Promote Staggered Hours ................................................ .............................13 3.7 Promote Flex -time ........................................................... .............................13 3.8 Move Majority of Deliveries Outside of AM/PM Peak Hours .....................13 ' 3.9 Integrate TDM Efforts Through Campus Transportation Coordinator ......... 13 3.10 Metro Commuter Services Support ............................... .............................14 3.11 Travel Demand Management Plan Budget .................... .............................15 3.12 Proposed Evaluation Program ........................................ .............................16 t 1 Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -i 4. SUPPORTING AGENCIES .............................................. .............................17 4.1 Metro Transit ................................................................... .............................17 4.2 Minnesota Valley Transit ................................................. .............................17 4.3 Southwest Metro Transit .................................................. .............................17 4.4 I -494 Corridor Coalition .................................................. .............................17 4.5 Metro Commuter Services ............................................... .............................18 t 1 Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -i L179 unld;uauiaSvunyy punu13alannu pasodo j OOOZ 71 aaquraiaa sndsuna ,(nS isaS IPA u 1 J F� J 11 L J 1 1 1.0 GOAL OF THE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN This Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the Best Buy Campus in Richfield, Minnesota, identifies actions to be taken by Best Buy Co., Inc. (Best Buy), with support from Metro Commuter Services and other transportation organizations. It includes strategies to manage travel demand and minimize site - generated traffic during peak traffic periods. The development of this TDM Plan has been done in coordination with the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, Southwest Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit, Metro Commuter Services (MCS), and the I -494 Corridor Commission. 1.1 GOAL The TDM Plan goal is to cut the trips to the Best Buy Campus in each peak hour by 450 to 750 trips. 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE GOAL IBest Buy will pursue the following objectives and strategies to achieve its TDM Plan goal. Promote Bicycle Use • Build a bicycle friendly Campus • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Disseminate bicycle commuting information widely and regularly Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -1 1.2.1 Objectives and Strategies Promote Transit Use • Build a transit friendly Campus ' • Increase transit service to the Campus • Provide financial incentives for transit use r• • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program Disseminate transit information widely and regularly Promote Car Pooling • Provide parking spaces preferential • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Disseminate car pool information widely and regularly Promote Van Pooling • Provide preferential parking spaces • Support programs to provide vans to van poolers • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program Disseminate van pool information widely and regularly Promote Bicycle Use • Build a bicycle friendly Campus • Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Disseminate bicycle commuting information widely and regularly Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -1 Promote Telecommuting • Adopt corporate policies which encourage telecommuting • Evaluate policies to identify barriers Promote Staggered Hours • Identify groups of employees whose jobs are applicable to working staggered hours • Identify appropriate schedules outside of the peak travel hours Promote Flex-time • Adopt corporate policies which encourage flexible work arrangements • Concentrate business meetings in core business hours • Program employee activities during the AM and PM peak hours Move Majority of Deliveries Outside of the AM and PMPeak Hours • Schedule weekday truck and service deliveries outside the AM and PM peak hours (This does not include Fed Ex and UPS -type deliveries) • Schedule truck and service deliveries on weekends when possible 1.2.2 Integrate All TDM Plan Efforts Through a Campus Transportation Coordinator Establish the position of Campus Transportation Coordinator in Year 2001 Give the Coordinator the Authority to Implement the TDM Plan Give the Coordinator the Authority to Pursue Corporate Policies which Promote Travel Demand Management 1.3 DEVELOPMENT OF GOAL 13.1 TDM Plan Goal Best Buy has identified a goal with the measurable objective of reducing the number of daily trips in the AM and PM peak hours by 450 to 750 at its new Campus. 1.3.2 Rationale for TDM Plan Goal This goal has been based on the results of the Employee Distribution Inventory conducted in May 2000 and the Employee Survey conducted in July 2000. The Distribution Inventory identified high concentrations of employees living in south Minneapolis, and in the south, southwest, and west suburbs of Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan, Burnsville, Apple Valley, Prior Lake, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and St. Louis Park. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -2 1 1 �I 1 1 The Employee Survey had a 30 percent response rate (approximately 1,300 employees) and indicated the following for those "likely" or "most likely" to try alternative modes of transportation: • 23% willing to try car pool • 16% willing to try the bus • 25% willing to try a van pool With these two key pieces of information, Best Buy met with the three service providers in these areas to demonstrate the opportunities to provide feasible bus service to the site as well as influencing opportunities to expand service along the I -494 Corridor with other large employers. In response to these visits, a number of actions are taking place. • Metro Transit has prepared a draft service plan that includes five routes to the Best Buy Campus site. • Both Southwest Metro Transit and Minnesota Valley Transit are working directly with Best Buy now to set up car /vanpools to the existing locations. Encouraging car /vanpool use now, will begin to change the mindset of employees to alternative modes of transportation,. • Best Buy will continue to work with the service providers to provide bus service to the site and to expand the car /vanpool programs. • Twelve zip code parties are taking place in Fall 2000 to develop car /van pools and distribute information. 13.3 Incentive to Implement Successful TDM Plan A key incentive for Best Buy to implement a successful TDM Plan is to avoid the need to replace the 476 parking spaces that will be lost to the I-494 widening in the Year 2011. Those parking spaces would be replaced in the parking ramp structure at a cost of approximately $5.7 to$6.3 million dollars. Since the TDM Plan is not required for traffic mitigation, this establishes a tangible target, with a financial incentive to Best Buy, for a successful TDM Plan. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -3 1.3.4 Achieving the TDM Plan Goal The site plan shows 7,500 parking spaces, of which 300 spaces are allocated for visitor parking, indicating that 4% of employees would need to use alternative times /modes of transportation. With the loss of 476 parking spaces due to I -494 widening, at least an additional 6% of employees will need to join the alternative times /modes group. This could be achieved, as follows: Mode # of Peak Hour Trips Reduced Bus 225 Car Pools 200 Staggered Hours 100 Flexible Hours 75 Van Pools 75 Telecommuting 75 750 Staggered Work Schedules Best Buy has already identified approximately 100 employees who will work staggered hours (as shown above) and will need parking, but will commute outside of the peak travel hours. These include cafeteria, janitorial, Fitness Center and daycare staff. Flexible Work Hours In addition, Best Buy will promote flexible work hours for employees. Approximately 16 percent in the AM and 30 percent in the PM of employees surveyed indicated a preference to startlend work outside of the peak travel hours. 13.5 Success of TDM Plan The Success of the TDM Plan is dependent on a number of factors, including: • Financial benefit/cost savings • Decreased commuting time • Decreased commuting stress. • Bus service to the site Best Buy Campus December ll, 2000. Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E-4 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 INITIAL STEPS FOR TDM PLAN ' Best Buy has undertaken a number of initial actions to develop a successful TDM Plan for the new Best Buy Campus, including the following: • Developed and Administered a Survey of All Employees. The survey, administered during the week of July 10, 2000, has provided helpful information on employee commuting habits and the steps to be taken to encourage employees to use alternative forms of transportation. Metropolitan Council was involved in the development of this survey. • Incorporated "Transit - Friendly" Design Features. One of Best Buy's objectives has been to develop a transit - friendly site design. Coordination meetings have been held with the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Metro Transit, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Metropolitan Council, the I -494 Corridor Commission, the developer, and the transportation consultant to accomplish this goal. Access to transit has been incorporated into the site plan with a bus turnaround into the site from 760' Street, with appropriate turning radius, access and drop -off. Employees who ride the bus will wait inside the building protected from the weather and have good site lines to view the approach of the bus. The Penn Avenue South northbound bus stop will be located just north of the Best Buy access drive. This is the shortest and safest route for transit riders to access the building. In addition, it has the least impact to peak hour traffic movements at this access point to the Campus and allows Best Buy Campus December ll, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -S • Compiled an Employee Distribution Inventory. The inventory was conducted in May 2000-and identifies the home location of all full -time employees to help determine the origin of work trips to the new Best Buy Campus (i.e. the "travel shed'). • Conducted Initial Meetings With Representatives From Transportation Organizations. Prior to the issuance of the Draft TDM Plan, Best Buy representatives met with representatives from Metro Transit, the City of Richfield, MnDOT and the I-494 Corridor Coalition to discuss and share ideas, and get input on initial elements of the TDM Plan. In May 2000, the Golden Triangle Transportation Management Association (TMA) was officially launched, in a partnership between the City of Eden Prairie, the Metropolitan Council, and the I -494 Corridor Commission. Best Buy met with representatives from the Golden Triangle TMA based in Eden Prairie which is the location of existing Best Buy offices. Best Buy joined the Golden Triangle TMA in July 2000 as an active participant with a $5,000 annual financial commitment. • Held initial meetings with Hennepin County. Best Buy met with Hennepin County in April 2000 to discuss site design features that would support and encourage transit use and/or car and van pooling to the Project Site. • Incorporated "Transit - Friendly" Design Features. One of Best Buy's objectives has been to develop a transit - friendly site design. Coordination meetings have been held with the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Metro Transit, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Metropolitan Council, the I -494 Corridor Commission, the developer, and the transportation consultant to accomplish this goal. Access to transit has been incorporated into the site plan with a bus turnaround into the site from 760' Street, with appropriate turning radius, access and drop -off. Employees who ride the bus will wait inside the building protected from the weather and have good site lines to view the approach of the bus. The Penn Avenue South northbound bus stop will be located just north of the Best Buy access drive. This is the shortest and safest route for transit riders to access the building. In addition, it has the least impact to peak hour traffic movements at this access point to the Campus and allows Best Buy Campus December ll, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -S hJ adequate distance for the bus left -turn movement to go west on 76a' Street. The ' southbound Penn Avenue bus stop is anticipated to be directly opposite the northbound stop. ' • Designated a Human Resources Employee. Best Buy has designated a Human Resources Employee for the next two years to explore the feasibility and , implementation of a number of strategies and policy decisions-to reduce the number of vehicle trips in the peak hour. 2.2 EXISTING POLICIES Best Buy currently uses a number of travel demand management strategies at its existing facilities to support employees' use of alternative modes of transportation to single occupancy vehicles. They include: • Designated preferential parking was initiated in January 1998 for approximately 120 car /van pools at existing facilities, indicating that approximately 4 percent of Best Buy employees either car or van pool. • Began a telecommuting policy in some departments in 1999. , • Provided bike racks for 40 bicycles at the existing Best Buy facilities. • Began the informal use of flexible work schedules by some employees. , • Currently working with Southwest Metro Transit and Minnesota Valley Transit to set up car /vanpools at existing Best Buy office locations. • Twelve zip code parties are taking place to develop car /van pools (started September 2000). 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.3.1 Overview The proposed Best Buy Campus will be located north of Interstate Highway 494 I494 ) , west of Interstate Highway 35W (I -35W), and south of 76h Street, between Penn and Knox Avenues in Richfield (Project Site or Site). The Project Site is approximately 43 acres in , size, and is currently fully developed. The Best Buy Campus is expected to be completed in late summer of 2002. Best Buy proposes to redevelop the Site by constructing four t o five buildings with a minimum of 1.5 million square feet and parking facilities for 7,500 cars (the expected level of redevelopment), and a maximum of 1.9 million square feet and parking for 9,500 cars. The Project will also include road improvements on 76a' Street from the intersection with Penn Avenue east to the I -35W west ramps, on Penn Avenue between 76h and the access to Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -6 I 1 Southtown just north of 80 th Street where the Penn Avenue bridge over I -494 will be completely rebuilt. The Project will be constructed as one complete development and no ' future phases are anticipated. ' Best Buy's current office facilities are located in nine separate locations within the Cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, accommodating approximately 3,200 employees. The expected level of development of the Best Buy Campus would accommodate 7,500 employees. Work Hours — The proposed campus will operate similarly to Best Buy's existing office buildings. Most employees work standard eight to nine hour days, Monday through Friday, with flexible work hours generally between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Amenities — The office complex will include standard workstations; office spaces; conference and team spaces; file and storage space; and adequate on -site employee parking. A common use area will include an employee cafeteria, a day care facility, a fitness center, and a convenience store with dry cleaning pickup. Conceptual Design — Two building layout concepts are now being considered for the project. Both could accommodate the expected and maximum square footage and parking spaces by adding floors to one or more buildings and levels to the parking ramps. These conceptual alternatives are further described below and in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ' (DEIS). Site Access - Access to the site would be from three entrances located on Penn Avenue, on Knox Avenue and on 760' Street at Newton Avenue. 2.3.2 Design Alternatives Two alternatives are being evaluated in the DEIS. Each of these alternatives has an expected development scenario (Option A) and a maximum development scenario (Option B) as follows: Option A: The total space developed for the expected development would be 1,500,000 square feet. The parking spaces provided would total 7,500. 1 Option B: The total space developed for the maximum development would be 1,900,000 square feet. The parking spaces provided would total 9,500. 1 Best Buy Campus December Il, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -7 Alternative 1- Site Plan Alternative Alternative I includes five buildings that would be clustered around a central pond that would extend out in two directions to form water features among the buildings. An additional one -story common use area would be constructed between two of the buildings. The five office buildings would vary in height, with a minimum of three stories and a maximum of 11. Parking would be provided in three structured ramps — one on the south of the Project Site, one at the northwest corner of the Site and one along the northeasterly portion of the Site, ranging in height from two levels to five levels. A surface lot would also be included along the southern portion of the Site. Alternative 2 - Proposed Project Alternative 2 includes four buildings, located in the southwest half of the Project Site, which would be connected by a one -story common use area, with several ponds located along the southerly and southwesterly side of the Site. The four office buildings would vary in height, with a minimum of six stories and a maximum of nine. Parking would be provided primarily in one large parking structure on the northeast half of the Site. This structure would have from five to six levels. A surface lot would also be provided along the southern portion of the Site. 2.3.3 76`h Street Reconstruction Alternatives The City of Richfield will require upgrades to 70 Street between I -35W and Penn Avenue, as part of the Project. However, the preliminary design for these improvements has not yet been determined. Therefore, the DEIS analyzes three different road improvement alternatives for 76`h Street, including one alternative that widens the roadway to the north, one that widens the roadway to the south and one that widens the roadway with some combination to the north and south of the existing right -of -way. 2.4 ACCESS TO TRANSIT 2.4.1 Existing Services There is a park -and -ride lot on the north side of 76`h Street at Oliver Avenue South just across the street from the Project Site. This lot is shared with the Woodlake Lutheran Church. Existing bus service to the Site is provided by Metro Transit Routes 4, 35C, and 46/47. Route 4 is a local all day service along Penn Avenue between Downtown Minneapolis (Downtown) and the Site; the 35C is an express bus with 20- minute service between Downtown and the Site during the peak hours; and the 46/47 provides all day service via 35W between , Downtown and the Site. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -8 I The existing Route 590 currently uses 82'd Street as the east -west route between I -35W and Edina. Discussions with Metro Transit indicate that this route could be rerouted to use 76a' Street with a stop at the Woodlake Lutheran Church to provide additional service to the Site. 2.4.2 Future Services Metro Transit is constructing the new 82nd Street/ I -35W Transit Hub that would provide ' additional bus service near the Site. Additionally, Metro Transit is evaluating transit service in the area as part of its "Transit ' Redesign' initiative. Since meeting with Metro Transit, they have developed a draft service plan that includes five routes to the Best Buy Campus site in Richfield. It is anticipated that new bus routes will be in place when the Best Buy Campus becomes operational in 2002. 1 F� 1 1 Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -9 1 3.1 PROMOTE TRANSIT USE , Build a transit friendly Campus • Incorporated design features at the 76a' Street entrance to the Site to accommodate buses, including a convenient area for passengers to wait inside the building with good site lines to view the approach of the bus. • Investigate installing an automatic signal device that gives preference to buses , exiting the Site at 76`x' Street. • Construct a bus stop on Penn Avenue to provide convenient access for employees. This will reduce traffic flow interruptions caused by buses. • Construct passenger waiting areas that incorporate conduit and other features to accommodate the installation of electronic signs /monitors to display real -time transit information, when available. Increase transit service to the Campus • Continue to meet with Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit and SouthWest Metro Transit to discuss service to the Best Buy Campus site. • Continue to coordinate with Metro Transit and others to incorporate transit features and amenities into the Site. • Continue to participate with transit providers to change transit routes to increase bus ridership to the Project Site and surrounding area. , Provide financial incentives for transit use • Offer employees discounted bus passes through the MetroPass and/or TransitWorks! programs. • Provide on -site sale of bus passes to Best Buy employees. • Provide transit - related tax benefit information to Best Buy employees. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program. GRH is available to all employees who ride the bus, carpool, vanpool, bike or walk to work at least three days per week. Eligible employees who complete a GRH registration form receive two vouchers for a bus or taxi ride home in the event of an emergency. Registration is renewable upon voucher expiration. Disseminate transit information widely and regularly • Provide materials to inform employees of available bus routes, stops and schedules. e Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -10 3.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN This section describes the Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the Best Buy Campus and the programs and strategies to support Best Buy employees in the use of alternative modes of transportation, telecommuting, staggered work hours, and flexible work hours. Best Buy proposes to undertake the actions described below. 3.1 PROMOTE TRANSIT USE , Build a transit friendly Campus • Incorporated design features at the 76a' Street entrance to the Site to accommodate buses, including a convenient area for passengers to wait inside the building with good site lines to view the approach of the bus. • Investigate installing an automatic signal device that gives preference to buses , exiting the Site at 76`x' Street. • Construct a bus stop on Penn Avenue to provide convenient access for employees. This will reduce traffic flow interruptions caused by buses. • Construct passenger waiting areas that incorporate conduit and other features to accommodate the installation of electronic signs /monitors to display real -time transit information, when available. Increase transit service to the Campus • Continue to meet with Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit and SouthWest Metro Transit to discuss service to the Best Buy Campus site. • Continue to coordinate with Metro Transit and others to incorporate transit features and amenities into the Site. • Continue to participate with transit providers to change transit routes to increase bus ridership to the Project Site and surrounding area. , Provide financial incentives for transit use • Offer employees discounted bus passes through the MetroPass and/or TransitWorks! programs. • Provide on -site sale of bus passes to Best Buy employees. • Provide transit - related tax benefit information to Best Buy employees. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program. GRH is available to all employees who ride the bus, carpool, vanpool, bike or walk to work at least three days per week. Eligible employees who complete a GRH registration form receive two vouchers for a bus or taxi ride home in the event of an emergency. Registration is renewable upon voucher expiration. Disseminate transit information widely and regularly • Provide materials to inform employees of available bus routes, stops and schedules. e Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -10 Provide preferential parking spaces • Best Buy will provide up to 275 parking spaces for car poolers in the Campus parking ramp on covered levels close to building entrances. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program PP ram P g • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home program offered through Metro Commuter 'Services.' ' Disseminate carpool information widely and regularly • Provide a link on Best Buy's intranet home page to the Metro Commuter Services web site which offers an online ride matching service and other information on forming car and van pools. • Provide information on ridesharing and other transportation alternatives as part of Best Buy's regular internal communications with employees. ' 3.3 PROMOTE VAN POOLING Provide preferential parking spaces • Best Buy will provide up to 25 parking spaces for van poolers in the Campus parking ramp on covered levels close to building entrances. Support programs to provide vans to van poolers • Continue to explore opportunities for vans to be provided to vanpoolers through Southwest Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit, and the I -494 Corridor Commission. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home program offered through Metro Commuter Services.1 1 This program is also available to transit users as discussed above in Section 3.1.. Best Buy Campus December ll, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -ll • Provide a link on Best Buy's intranet home page to the Metro Transit web site for ' trip planning services. • Construct an information kiosk located centrally in the commons area to provide information on bus service and other transportation alternatives. • Conduct several Commuter Fairs annually in conjunction with Metro Commuter Services to inform and assist employees in learning about alternative transportation opportunities. • Promote alternative modes of transportation as part of the Bus/Bike Or Pool (B- BOP) program undertaken each spring by Metro Commuter Services. This one- day event promotes using alternative forms of transportation. 3.2 PROMOTE CAR POOLING Provide preferential parking spaces • Best Buy will provide up to 275 parking spaces for car poolers in the Campus parking ramp on covered levels close to building entrances. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program PP ram P g • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home program offered through Metro Commuter 'Services.' ' Disseminate carpool information widely and regularly • Provide a link on Best Buy's intranet home page to the Metro Commuter Services web site which offers an online ride matching service and other information on forming car and van pools. • Provide information on ridesharing and other transportation alternatives as part of Best Buy's regular internal communications with employees. ' 3.3 PROMOTE VAN POOLING Provide preferential parking spaces • Best Buy will provide up to 25 parking spaces for van poolers in the Campus parking ramp on covered levels close to building entrances. Support programs to provide vans to van poolers • Continue to explore opportunities for vans to be provided to vanpoolers through Southwest Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit, and the I -494 Corridor Commission. Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home program offered through Metro Commuter Services.1 1 This program is also available to transit users as discussed above in Section 3.1.. Best Buy Campus December ll, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -ll Disseminate van pool information widely and regularly • Pt'ovide tax benefit information to vanpoolers and offer the Commuter Check program. (The Commuter Check program is a voucher program that allows employers and employees to take advantage of federal and state tax breaks.) 3.4 PROMOTE BICYCLE USE 1 Build a bicycle friendly Campus , • Provide bike storage for up to 80 bicycles (this is an approximate number, it will be adjusted to fulfill Best Buy employee needs). • Provide shower and locker facilities in the fitness center. , Support the Guaranteed Ride Home program • Promote the Guaranteed Ride Home program offered through Metro Commuter Services.2 Disseminate bicycle commuting information widely and regularly • Promote alternative modes of transportation as part of the Bus/Bike Or Pool (B- BOP) program undertaken each spring by Metro Commuter Services. This one - day event promotes using alternative forms of transportation to the single occupant vehicle. 3.5 PROMOTE TELECOMMUTING , Adopt corporate policies that encourage telecommuting • Best Buy has a policy that encourages the practice of telecommuting in some departments, it is currently used by very few of its employees. Evaluate policy to identify barriers , • Best Buy has assigned a task force to investigate the bangers to telecommuting and ways to increase its use. 3.6 PROMOTE STAGGERED HOURS Identify groups of employees whose jobs are applicable to working staggered hours • Approximately 100 employees (of the 7,500) will provide services such as maintenance of the building, cafeteria help, etc. The staggered work schedules for these employees will move trips outside of the AM and PM peak travel hours. Although these employees will need parking, they will have staggered work hours and arrive in shifts outside of the peak traffic periods. Z This program is also available to transit users as discussed above in Section 3.1. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -12 1 Schedule truck and service deliveries on weekends when possible Identify Staggered Schedules outside of the peak travel hours ' #/Tyne of Employees Hours 50 Janitorial staff 3:00 pm to 2:00 am ' 30 Cafeteria staff 6:00 am to 3:00 pm 5 Fitness Center staff early and late starts ' 30 Daycare staff (staggered) 6:00 am to 6:00 pm 3.7 PROMOTE FLEX -TIME In addition to staggered work schedules, Best Buy will promote flexible work hours for employees. Adopt corporate policies that encourage flexible work arrangements ' • Provide flexible work arrangements for employees (with supervisors' permission) that encourage employees to arrive and/or leave outside of peak hour travel times. Concentrate business meetings in core business hours ' Program employee activities during the AM and PMpeak hours Program employee activities during the peak hour to encourage travel at non -peak periods, ie: Fitness, Wellness Programs 3.8 MOVE MAJORITY OF DELIVERIES OUTSIDE OF THE AM AND PM PEAK HOURS ' Schedule weekday truck and service deliveries outside the AM and PMpeak hours ' • Best Buy will implement a policy that encourages truck and/or service deliveries to occur outside of Monday through Friday peak -hour traffic times.3 Schedule truck and service deliveries on weekends when possible 3.9 INTEGRATE ALL TDM PLAN EFFORTS THROUGH A CAMPUS ' TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR Establish the position of Campus Transportation Coordinator ' Best Buy will designate a Campus Transportation Coordinator (Coordinator) for the Best Buy Campus, who will be responsible for implementing, administering, and monitoring the ' programs described in the TDM Plan a 3 This would not include Fed Ex and UPS -type deliveries. a This will be a 100% Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position for the first three years, 2001 - 2003_. After the first three years, the position will be evaluated to determine the appropriate time commitment. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 ' Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -13 • The Coordinator will have the opportunity to connect to the regional Specificsily, the Coordinator will be responsible for the following: • Maintain on -site information kiosks. 1 • Distribute new employee orientation information. • Oversee the on -site sale of transit passes. • Provide information on transportation alternatives to employees. ' • Inform employees and administrators of associated tax benefits. • Oversee Best Buy's ridesharing programs. , • Communicate with Best Buy employees on a regular basis regarding ' transportation alternatives. Give the Coordinator the Authority to Implement the TDM Plan • The Coordinator will have the opportunity to connect to the regional ridematching software provided by MCS. The Coordinator will then be able to ridematch employees on demand, giving them options for car or vanpooling including individuals with which to pool, park -and -ride locations, pool registration, the Guaranteed Ride Home registration and ' local bike routes. • The Coordinator will also have the ability to connect to the Metro Transit , internet site to do on -demand bus trip planning for employees. • The Coordinator will coordinate its services and programs with those offered by the various transportation providers in the area. Give the Coordinator the Authority to Pursue Corporate Policies which Promote Travel Demand Management The Coordinator will serve as Best Buy's liaison with transportation providers in the area. 3.10 METRO COMMUTER SERVICES SUPPORT ' Metro Commuter Services (MCS) will support the implementation of the Best Buy Draft TDM Plan as follows: • Take the lead in rideshare matching for the formation of car and vanpools by , employees. MCS is the regional clearing house for rideshare matching. • Provide information to Best Buy on the MetroPass and TransitWorks! programs, and other discounted bus pass options. • Provide the Best Buy Campus Transportation Coordinator with information packets concerning transportation choices for distribution to all Best Buy employees. , • Provide information to Best Buy employees on the Guaranteed Ride Home program sponsored by MCS. , • Assist Best Buy with promotional events and other initiatives related to informing employees of available transportation alternatives. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -14 , = = = = = = O 3.11 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN BUDGET Estimated Costs.for TDMPlan TDM Plan Element & Cost Assumptions Estimated Value Direct Costs One -Time I Annual Initial Steps . Develop and Administer Survey to All Employees One Survey Administered to All Em to ees in July 2000 - $5,000 - Initial Meetings with Transportation Organizations Best Buy Staff-Time Included in Overall Pro'ect Development - - Incorporate "Transit-Friendly" Design Features Inco orated by Architects at Direction o Best Buy Staff - $27,000 - Polic /Staffm Establish a Campus Transportation Coordinator 100% FTE in Years 2001 -2003 @ $50, 0001Year (w/beng o - - $50,000 Establish Flexible Work Hours /Schedules Administrative PoAy Adopted by Best Bu - $16,000 - Mass Transit Build a "Transit - Friendl ' Campus Passenger Waiting Areas Ready for Real -Time Waiting Areas Constructed with Conduit & Other Features for Information Electronic Signs/Monitors - $2,500 - Promote Transit and CarNan Pooling `Buydown " of Car/Yan Poolers, and TransitWorks for up to 3 Years $10,000 Conduct Commuter Fairs Estimated Cost: $1,000 1Fair, Quarterly $4,000 Information Kiosk in Commons Area Estimated Cost is $10, 000 - $10,000 - Employee Communications: Newsletters, Intranet, Average of $250 /Month Posters, New Employee Info Packets - - $3,000 Ridesharin Enticements for Ridesharin Preferential Parldng Spaces for CarNan Pools Value of 300 Parking Spaces @ $7, 000 per Space (Parking Ramp $2,100,000 - Signs Designating Designatigg CarNan Pool Parldng 10 Si $150 Each - $1,500 - Conduct CarNan Pool Parties Estimated Cost: $100 /Ca ool Pa M, Monthly $1,200 Bicycles Provide Covered Bike Storage for 80 Bicycles Value of 80 Bicycle 5 aces $IIS Each $9,200 TOTALSI $2,109,200 $72,000 $58,200 Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -15 3.12 PROPOSED EVALUATION PROGRAM 3.12.1 Survey Employees As noted earlier, Best Buy has conducted a survey of its employees' current commuting habits and needs. • The Best Buy Commuter Survey was developed in coordination with the Metropolitan Council. The survey findings will be used as a base -line to evaluate the effectiveness of the TDM Plan. • Best Buy will survey employees one year after move -in to the Best Buy Campus to determine commuting patterns and needs. This will help determine how the TDM Plan is working. Follow -up surveys may be implemented, with assistance from MCS, every two years to monitor the effectiveness of the TDM Plan. 3.12.2 TDM Plan Status Report The Campus Transportation Coordinator will review the TDM Plan one year after move -in to determine its effectiveness, and .will document the results in a Status Report. The Status Report will be sent to MCS for review and recommendation and to the Metropolitan Council for review. Subsequent reviews will take place every two years. The Status Report will document the initial survey of employees, efforts of Best Buy to encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicles and the results in terms of number of transit users, car poolers, bikers, pedestrians, and employees taking advantage of flex -time, staggered hours, and telecommuting options. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -16 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 i 4.0 SUPPORTING AGENCIES The following agencies are expected to provide services that directly support Best Buy's TDM plan: Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit, Southwest Metro Transit, the I494 Corridor Commission and Metro Commuter Services. Currently, there is very little bus service provided in the vicinity of the Project Site. Coordination with each of these agencies will be needed to provide increased transit service to the Site in order for Best Buy to achieve its TDM goals. An overview of each agency is provided below. 4.1 METRO TRANSIT Metro Transit is the largest transit provider for the Twin Cities metropolitan area and operates as a division of the Metropolitan Council. Metro Transit's service area includes the City of Richfield. 4.2 MINNESOTA VALLEY TRANSIT Minnesota Valley provides a variety of public transit services to residents in Burnsville, Apple Valley, Eagan, Prior Lake, Savage and Rosemount. Major destinations from these cities include downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul, the Mall of America and the Minnesota Zoo. A large number of existing Best Buy employees live in the area served by Minnesota Valley Transit. 4.3 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT Southwest Metro provides public transit services to the residents of Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and Shakopee to destinations throughout the metropolitan area. A large number of existing Best Buy employees live in the area served by SouthWest Metro Transit. 4.4 I494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION The I -494 Corridor Commission is a Joint Powers Organization QPO) of seven cities that are working together to reduce congestion along the I-494 corridor by working with affected businesses and public agencies to reduce travel demand. Their mission is to promote the improvement of I494 from the Minnesota River in Bloomington to I -94 in Maple Grove, in order to increase the people- moving capacity of I494, and to improve the productivity and convenience of businesses and residents throughout the region. Members include the Cities of Bloomington, Edina, Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield. Partners include the Metropolitan Council, Mn/130T, Metro Transit, Southwest Metro Transit, Maple Grove Transit, Plymouth Metrolink and Hennepin County. Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -17 4.5 METRO COMMUTER SERVICES 1 The development of this TDM has been done in coordination with Metro Commuter Services , (MCS), the Twin Cities area regional commuter transportation agency. As part of the Metropolitan Council, MCS promotes the planning, development and implementation of commuter options that decrease traffic congestion by improving both the effectiveness and ' efficiency of existing transportation infrastructure. MCS offers direct-assistance to employers who seek to promote commuter options. For example, MCS works with employers to assess the current transportation situation and commuting needs of its , employees through the MCS Commuter Survey. MCS also assists employers through the Finding Alternative Sources of Transportation (FAST) Plan. Other services offered by MCS include ride matching services, subsidies for start-up vans of five or more passengers, and the , Guaranteed Ride Home program. MCS also provides transit information; MCS can identify all the routes and park -and -ride lots available to employees for their commute. In addition, MCS can investigate the option of reverse commuting from inner city to suburb, and from , suburb to suburb, thereby broadening the available employee pool. 1 L 1 1 1 7 Best Buy Campus December 11, 2000 Proposed Travel Demand Management Plan E -18 '